1 00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:02,440 Speaker 1: I want to ask you something. What do you think 2 00:00:02,440 --> 00:00:04,160 Speaker 1: of financial conflict of interest? 3 00:00:04,240 --> 00:00:04,320 Speaker 2: Is? 4 00:00:05,000 --> 00:00:06,159 Speaker 1: Do you have any idea. 5 00:00:08,720 --> 00:00:10,400 Speaker 3: When two people. 6 00:00:11,760 --> 00:00:15,360 Speaker 2: Both are like, share a bank account and they want 7 00:00:15,400 --> 00:00:17,600 Speaker 2: to spend money on something, but that the person. 8 00:00:17,280 --> 00:00:20,800 Speaker 1: Doesn't that's a good thought. What if I told you 9 00:00:20,880 --> 00:00:25,720 Speaker 1: it describes when powerful people like people who sit on 10 00:00:25,720 --> 00:00:30,560 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court have money or other things they own 11 00:00:30,840 --> 00:00:34,080 Speaker 1: and it might affect how they they rule on things. 12 00:00:35,280 --> 00:00:36,920 Speaker 2: I don't think that's correct, and I don't think that 13 00:00:36,960 --> 00:00:37,520 Speaker 2: should happen. 14 00:00:39,360 --> 00:00:42,519 Speaker 1: This is Crash Course, a podcast about business, political, and 15 00:00:42,560 --> 00:00:45,559 Speaker 1: social disruption and what we can learn from it. I'm 16 00:00:45,600 --> 00:00:49,239 Speaker 1: Tim O'Brien and that was my son Cooper helping me 17 00:00:49,280 --> 00:00:53,240 Speaker 1: set up today's Crash Course. The Supreme Court versus Greed. 18 00:00:54,240 --> 00:00:58,080 Speaker 1: Consider this. The Supreme Court justices get lucrative book deals 19 00:00:58,360 --> 00:01:01,360 Speaker 1: two million dollars for me, Cody Bear, and three million 20 00:01:01,400 --> 00:01:05,000 Speaker 1: per Sonia Sotomayor. They get lux travel, junkets, and the 21 00:01:05,000 --> 00:01:08,080 Speaker 1: freedom to invest in almost anything they want, all with 22 00:01:08,240 --> 00:01:13,280 Speaker 1: limited and forgiving disclosures. And one Justice Clarence Thomas, has 23 00:01:13,360 --> 00:01:16,160 Speaker 1: routinely offered evidence of some of the Court's most glaring 24 00:01:16,200 --> 00:01:20,120 Speaker 1: conflicts of interest. Pro Publica recently revealed a gold mine 25 00:01:20,160 --> 00:01:22,920 Speaker 1: of gifts and financial favors Thomas has received from a 26 00:01:22,959 --> 00:01:27,919 Speaker 1: prominent Texas businessman, Harlan Crowe. Thomas also has a spouse 27 00:01:27,959 --> 00:01:31,160 Speaker 1: who makes a living advocating for conservative causes that have 28 00:01:31,200 --> 00:01:34,560 Speaker 1: also found their way to the Court. How disinterested can 29 00:01:34,600 --> 00:01:38,080 Speaker 1: the justices be ruling on weighty matters like corporate power, 30 00:01:38,600 --> 00:01:42,600 Speaker 1: business competition, and the future of democracy when their own 31 00:01:42,600 --> 00:01:45,920 Speaker 1: wallets are involved. To help us figure out the Court's 32 00:01:45,959 --> 00:01:50,160 Speaker 1: ethical collisions, I invited Gabe Roth to join us. Gabe 33 00:01:50,240 --> 00:01:52,680 Speaker 1: is the founder and executive director of Fixed the Court, 34 00:01:53,160 --> 00:01:57,360 Speaker 1: a nonpartisan advocacy group pushing for various court reforms, including 35 00:01:57,440 --> 00:02:02,480 Speaker 1: new ethics guidelines. I wanted to come in at a 36 00:02:02,520 --> 00:02:05,800 Speaker 1: thirty five thousand foot level first to just ask you, 37 00:02:06,840 --> 00:02:10,000 Speaker 1: why should we even care about the financial dealings of 38 00:02:10,160 --> 00:02:13,920 Speaker 1: Supreme Court justices. They're stewards of the law, after all. 39 00:02:14,400 --> 00:02:16,600 Speaker 1: Can't they be trusted to manage their money in ways 40 00:02:16,600 --> 00:02:18,560 Speaker 1: that don't collide with their professional duties. 41 00:02:18,960 --> 00:02:21,160 Speaker 4: No, we can't trust the justices just to be off 42 00:02:21,200 --> 00:02:24,919 Speaker 4: on their own without having any sort of ethical benchmark. 43 00:02:25,080 --> 00:02:28,040 Speaker 4: The justices are human beings, just like you and me 44 00:02:28,280 --> 00:02:31,720 Speaker 4: and anyone listening to this podcast. I think that the 45 00:02:32,280 --> 00:02:36,840 Speaker 4: members of Congress have put upon themselves some strict ethics rules, 46 00:02:36,919 --> 00:02:39,919 Speaker 4: and the executive branch has some fairly. 47 00:02:39,720 --> 00:02:41,040 Speaker 3: Strict ethics rules as well. 48 00:02:41,120 --> 00:02:43,880 Speaker 4: It's just the judiciary branch with the Supreme Court at 49 00:02:43,880 --> 00:02:46,600 Speaker 4: the top, that doesn't have the same type of travel 50 00:02:46,880 --> 00:02:52,120 Speaker 4: gift outside income reimbursement type rules that in this day 51 00:02:52,160 --> 00:02:54,280 Speaker 4: and age, it makes no sense, especially given how much 52 00:02:54,320 --> 00:02:56,880 Speaker 4: power they have. Forget about the reason that we're talking, 53 00:02:56,960 --> 00:02:59,240 Speaker 4: which is the Justice Thomas travel scandal, which I'm sure 54 00:02:59,240 --> 00:03:01,480 Speaker 4: we'll get to, but in this day and age where 55 00:03:01,480 --> 00:03:04,799 Speaker 4: they have just such outsize power, who can vote, who 56 00:03:04,840 --> 00:03:07,720 Speaker 4: wins presidential elections, who can get healthcare, who can live 57 00:03:07,800 --> 00:03:10,680 Speaker 4: or die, where we pray, all these things, of course 58 00:03:10,760 --> 00:03:12,800 Speaker 4: they should have to follow certain rules that show that 59 00:03:12,800 --> 00:03:14,160 Speaker 4: they're above board ethically. 60 00:03:14,800 --> 00:03:15,560 Speaker 3: Makes sense. 61 00:03:15,600 --> 00:03:18,640 Speaker 1: You know, the presidency is free from most of the 62 00:03:18,680 --> 00:03:22,800 Speaker 1: conflict of interest guidelines that govern the rest of the 63 00:03:22,840 --> 00:03:26,679 Speaker 1: federal government. And the argument behind that was you could 64 00:03:26,720 --> 00:03:30,160 Speaker 1: not come up with a reasonable set of ethics standards 65 00:03:30,680 --> 00:03:34,880 Speaker 1: that wouldn't end up hamstringing any president from being able 66 00:03:34,920 --> 00:03:38,480 Speaker 1: to carry out his or her duties. And over the years, 67 00:03:39,800 --> 00:03:43,200 Speaker 1: Justice Roberts the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has 68 00:03:43,560 --> 00:03:45,560 Speaker 1: come up with a similar argument for the Court that 69 00:03:45,960 --> 00:03:48,800 Speaker 1: it shouldn't be constrained by these things because it would 70 00:03:48,800 --> 00:03:49,400 Speaker 1: get in the way. 71 00:03:49,840 --> 00:03:53,000 Speaker 4: Look, there definitely are a few rules that presidents have 72 00:03:53,080 --> 00:03:56,080 Speaker 4: to follow in terms of you know, financial disclosure, the 73 00:03:56,080 --> 00:03:58,680 Speaker 4: Emolument's clause, and the Constitution that they can't get rich 74 00:03:58,720 --> 00:04:02,000 Speaker 4: off of their position. But I think that we've seen 75 00:04:02,960 --> 00:04:06,000 Speaker 4: that well. First of all, I mean, the judicial scandals 76 00:04:06,160 --> 00:04:09,400 Speaker 4: are just exploding, right. This is not just you know, 77 00:04:09,560 --> 00:04:11,720 Speaker 4: one time thing where a justice is getting on a 78 00:04:11,760 --> 00:04:12,920 Speaker 4: yacht or and we'll. 79 00:04:12,800 --> 00:04:14,839 Speaker 1: Get to those. We'll enumerate a bunch of those which 80 00:04:14,880 --> 00:04:18,320 Speaker 1: I want to, But I just was philosophically wanted to 81 00:04:18,400 --> 00:04:23,080 Speaker 1: kind of explore this idea of is it constraining actually 82 00:04:23,240 --> 00:04:25,440 Speaker 1: to have to have tighter ethics guidelines? 83 00:04:25,800 --> 00:04:29,040 Speaker 4: I don't think so, because it's not that what is 84 00:04:29,080 --> 00:04:33,400 Speaker 4: being requested from the justices is that difficult. I mean, 85 00:04:33,600 --> 00:04:35,400 Speaker 4: and there are people that want to impeach Thomas, which 86 00:04:35,440 --> 00:04:37,159 Speaker 4: is never going to happen, and remove him, which is 87 00:04:37,160 --> 00:04:38,679 Speaker 4: never going to happen, and they want him to resign, 88 00:04:38,720 --> 00:04:40,719 Speaker 4: which is never going to happen. You know, I think 89 00:04:40,760 --> 00:04:43,599 Speaker 4: that for the people who are living in a world 90 00:04:43,680 --> 00:04:47,760 Speaker 4: where Congress is divided fairly evenly, what people are talking 91 00:04:47,800 --> 00:04:53,000 Speaker 4: about reform wise are rules that would not necessarily constrain behavior. Right, 92 00:04:53,040 --> 00:04:55,280 Speaker 4: the justices would still be able to have friends, They'd 93 00:04:55,279 --> 00:04:57,280 Speaker 4: still be able to go on vacations, they still wouldn't 94 00:04:57,279 --> 00:04:58,760 Speaker 4: have to pay for certain vacations. 95 00:04:59,040 --> 00:04:59,760 Speaker 3: It's just there's a. 96 00:04:59,680 --> 00:05:04,440 Speaker 4: Certain level of luxury after which, to the average person 97 00:05:05,560 --> 00:05:08,880 Speaker 4: it seems that there's no way that there's no quid 98 00:05:08,920 --> 00:05:12,600 Speaker 4: pro quo involved, Like just the luxury of certain gifts 99 00:05:12,600 --> 00:05:15,279 Speaker 4: and perks just implies that there is some sort of 100 00:05:15,440 --> 00:05:18,039 Speaker 4: dishonest dealings. And I think it's just, you know, it's 101 00:05:18,080 --> 00:05:20,440 Speaker 4: the smell test. It's the history of corruption in the 102 00:05:20,520 --> 00:05:24,000 Speaker 4: United States across all three branches, both at the federal 103 00:05:24,080 --> 00:05:26,560 Speaker 4: and the state level. And you know, when I'm looking 104 00:05:26,600 --> 00:05:29,800 Speaker 4: at the proposals here to try to change things, no 105 00:05:29,839 --> 00:05:33,200 Speaker 4: one is saying, like, let's make it so the justices 106 00:05:33,279 --> 00:05:35,880 Speaker 4: have to live this monastic lifestyle. I don't think that's 107 00:05:35,880 --> 00:05:37,599 Speaker 4: what folks are saying. I think the folks are saying, like, 108 00:05:37,640 --> 00:05:40,400 Speaker 4: we need more disclosure and we need to make sure 109 00:05:40,520 --> 00:05:44,640 Speaker 4: that when these super lux things are happening, that you 110 00:05:44,680 --> 00:05:46,520 Speaker 4: can't just say, oh, I'm friends with the guy, and 111 00:05:46,560 --> 00:05:47,920 Speaker 4: that's why I don't have to report it. 112 00:05:48,000 --> 00:05:51,200 Speaker 1: And the issue of financial conflicts of interest gets tangible 113 00:05:51,240 --> 00:05:53,840 Speaker 1: when we talk about them through examples, and I want 114 00:05:53,880 --> 00:05:56,599 Speaker 1: to identify some of those in which the conflict and 115 00:05:56,640 --> 00:05:59,360 Speaker 1: the problem of the conflict is really clear. And we'll 116 00:05:59,440 --> 00:06:03,960 Speaker 1: have to start, of course, today with Clarence Thomas. Clarence 117 00:06:04,000 --> 00:06:07,800 Speaker 1: Thomas took a number of luxury trips through the good 118 00:06:07,800 --> 00:06:11,640 Speaker 1: graces of Harlan Crowe. What was your first take when 119 00:06:11,640 --> 00:06:14,599 Speaker 1: you saw that it was revealed that he had gone 120 00:06:14,640 --> 00:06:19,320 Speaker 1: on any number of pricey trips on Crow's dime, and 121 00:06:19,360 --> 00:06:23,640 Speaker 1: that Crow is also given money to causes favored by 122 00:06:23,880 --> 00:06:26,919 Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas or to groups affiliated with Clarence Thomas. 123 00:06:27,560 --> 00:06:30,160 Speaker 4: The first time that I saw that, I was shocked, 124 00:06:30,720 --> 00:06:33,360 Speaker 4: but also not that surprise, because we knew that this 125 00:06:33,520 --> 00:06:37,080 Speaker 4: relationship existed. To me, I didn't really understand the scope 126 00:06:37,680 --> 00:06:40,599 Speaker 4: or the opulence that was involved. It's one thing to 127 00:06:40,640 --> 00:06:43,800 Speaker 4: get a sixty four hundred dollars bronze statue from a guy. 128 00:06:43,839 --> 00:06:47,320 Speaker 4: It's a totally different thing to be given potentially million 129 00:06:47,360 --> 00:06:48,720 Speaker 4: dollars in free vacations. 130 00:06:48,760 --> 00:06:49,920 Speaker 3: Over a number of years. 131 00:06:50,160 --> 00:06:52,800 Speaker 1: And on top of it, to have the property that 132 00:06:52,839 --> 00:06:55,960 Speaker 1: your mother is living in Clarence Thomas's mother. Yes, that 133 00:06:57,120 --> 00:07:03,039 Speaker 1: purchased at above market rates and benefited Thomas's own relationship 134 00:07:03,080 --> 00:07:05,360 Speaker 1: with his mother as well as his wallet. She still 135 00:07:05,400 --> 00:07:08,000 Speaker 1: lives there, correct. Harlan Crow said he was doing it 136 00:07:08,000 --> 00:07:10,080 Speaker 1: to set up some sort of a nonprofit group. 137 00:07:10,000 --> 00:07:12,280 Speaker 3: A museum for Thomas's childhood home or something. 138 00:07:12,360 --> 00:07:15,720 Speaker 1: Yes, but mom is still living there. That's also fairly 139 00:07:15,760 --> 00:07:18,480 Speaker 1: egregious and startling conflict. 140 00:07:18,520 --> 00:07:20,440 Speaker 4: I think it is, and that to me is the 141 00:07:20,440 --> 00:07:23,320 Speaker 4: clearest violation of federal law that we have here, right. 142 00:07:23,360 --> 00:07:25,200 Speaker 4: I think that the federal law says that you need 143 00:07:25,240 --> 00:07:28,960 Speaker 4: to report any sort of trips or gifts that you get, 144 00:07:28,960 --> 00:07:32,120 Speaker 4: except there's a personal hospitality exemption. If you read the law, 145 00:07:32,160 --> 00:07:35,320 Speaker 4: the personal hospitality exemption does not include transportation. So I 146 00:07:35,320 --> 00:07:37,760 Speaker 4: think at least the private plane trips should have been reported, 147 00:07:37,800 --> 00:07:41,200 Speaker 4: which is a violation. But even if you can sort 148 00:07:41,200 --> 00:07:45,360 Speaker 4: of squint really hard and construe the personal hospitality exemption 149 00:07:45,800 --> 00:07:49,440 Speaker 4: on a property and a plane could be a property, yeah, 150 00:07:49,880 --> 00:07:52,120 Speaker 4: jump through, you know, do all sorts of mental gymnastics 151 00:07:52,160 --> 00:07:55,880 Speaker 4: to figure out how those omissions were not violations of 152 00:07:55,960 --> 00:07:58,440 Speaker 4: the Federal Disclosure Law. But it is very clear in 153 00:07:58,480 --> 00:08:01,000 Speaker 4: the disclosure law that any real life state transaction that 154 00:08:01,080 --> 00:08:03,960 Speaker 4: is greater than one thousand dollars must be reported on 155 00:08:04,000 --> 00:08:07,320 Speaker 4: the disclosure and it's not there. I mean, it falls 156 00:08:07,360 --> 00:08:09,920 Speaker 4: off the disclosure about seven or eight years ago for 157 00:08:10,000 --> 00:08:13,080 Speaker 4: reasons that are not described. And you know, if you're 158 00:08:13,120 --> 00:08:15,120 Speaker 4: looking at it as a neutral observer, you're like, Oh, 159 00:08:15,240 --> 00:08:18,760 Speaker 4: a couple of lots in Liberty County, maybe the bank 160 00:08:18,800 --> 00:08:19,960 Speaker 4: repossessed them or something. 161 00:08:20,160 --> 00:08:22,560 Speaker 3: But no, that was my assumption. 162 00:08:22,600 --> 00:08:24,840 Speaker 4: I was again wrong, But that to me is a 163 00:08:24,880 --> 00:08:26,760 Speaker 4: clear violational law and there needs to be some follow 164 00:08:26,840 --> 00:08:28,120 Speaker 4: up from the Justice Department on that. 165 00:08:28,440 --> 00:08:31,440 Speaker 1: And tell our audience briefly about the Federal disclosure lawn 166 00:08:31,600 --> 00:08:35,800 Speaker 1: and how that governs disclosure by the Supreme Court justices. 167 00:08:36,080 --> 00:08:37,439 Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a really interesting story. 168 00:08:37,480 --> 00:08:39,600 Speaker 4: I mean, it really goes back to the disclosure law 169 00:08:39,640 --> 00:08:41,960 Speaker 4: was signed by Jimmy Carter in nineteen seventy eight, but 170 00:08:42,160 --> 00:08:44,880 Speaker 4: some of the genesis into a decade prior at the 171 00:08:44,920 --> 00:08:47,560 Speaker 4: Supreme Court because there were two Supreme Court justices that 172 00:08:47,640 --> 00:08:50,520 Speaker 4: were taking in outside money and it became a scandal. 173 00:08:50,600 --> 00:08:54,320 Speaker 4: So pretty soon after that, then Chief Justice Burger had 174 00:08:54,400 --> 00:08:58,000 Speaker 4: his colleagues release details of their outside income, any money 175 00:08:58,000 --> 00:08:59,679 Speaker 4: that they received in the previous year. They put it 176 00:08:59,679 --> 00:09:02,560 Speaker 4: in a starting in nineteen seventy that went on for 177 00:09:02,600 --> 00:09:05,439 Speaker 4: a few years, and then after Watergate, Congress got on 178 00:09:05,679 --> 00:09:08,080 Speaker 4: the ball and said, look, we need an entire government 179 00:09:08,120 --> 00:09:11,520 Speaker 4: wide disclosure law that says what your investments are, what 180 00:09:11,559 --> 00:09:15,920 Speaker 4: you're buying, what you're selling, any outside income, any spousal jobs, 181 00:09:16,000 --> 00:09:21,120 Speaker 4: any large debts that you have, and any gifts, travel reimbursements, 182 00:09:21,280 --> 00:09:25,920 Speaker 4: free travel for food, transportation, entertainment, lodging, and that all 183 00:09:25,920 --> 00:09:28,679 Speaker 4: has to be listed on a report that's due every 184 00:09:28,720 --> 00:09:30,559 Speaker 4: May fifteenth. So the new ones are going to be 185 00:09:30,600 --> 00:09:32,160 Speaker 4: due soon and those are going to be coming out 186 00:09:32,520 --> 00:09:35,840 Speaker 4: hopefully in June. And it's a wealth of information that shows, 187 00:09:35,880 --> 00:09:39,760 Speaker 4: you know, okay, this justice went to this place with 188 00:09:39,880 --> 00:09:42,440 Speaker 4: this person, and then you can say, okay, did they 189 00:09:42,600 --> 00:09:45,640 Speaker 4: have any cases before the court? Is there any potential conflicts. 190 00:09:45,679 --> 00:09:48,160 Speaker 4: It's just a really good way. I mean, they could 191 00:09:48,200 --> 00:09:50,120 Speaker 4: easily be more detailed, and we can get into that, 192 00:09:50,160 --> 00:09:52,640 Speaker 4: but it's a good way of doing sort of basic accountability. 193 00:09:53,120 --> 00:09:56,320 Speaker 3: So since nineteen eighty one January twelfth, nineteen eighty one. 194 00:09:56,400 --> 00:10:01,480 Speaker 4: The justices have effectively sanctioned the financial disclosure process, and 195 00:10:01,480 --> 00:10:04,320 Speaker 4: they've been filling them out. Obviously, not all of them 196 00:10:04,360 --> 00:10:06,880 Speaker 4: are filling it out completely as they should, as we mentioned, 197 00:10:07,040 --> 00:10:08,640 Speaker 4: but they've been filling it out every year since. 198 00:10:08,960 --> 00:10:11,040 Speaker 1: You know, this raises a couple of things. One is, 199 00:10:11,360 --> 00:10:15,800 Speaker 1: the obvious reason we do this is because any financial 200 00:10:15,840 --> 00:10:20,880 Speaker 1: relationship with someone else outside the court may affect impartiality 201 00:10:21,040 --> 00:10:24,360 Speaker 1: or rulings when matters come before the court that affects 202 00:10:24,360 --> 00:10:28,600 Speaker 1: those individuals. It's just a EON's old definition of why 203 00:10:28,640 --> 00:10:32,800 Speaker 1: financial conflicts of interests are problematic. But secondly, all of 204 00:10:32,840 --> 00:10:36,800 Speaker 1: this involves really is disclosure for the sake of disclosure. 205 00:10:37,080 --> 00:10:41,319 Speaker 1: There's not a larger architecture around this that either penalizes 206 00:10:41,400 --> 00:10:46,760 Speaker 1: them or actually precludes them from engaging in certain activities. 207 00:10:46,800 --> 00:10:49,560 Speaker 1: It's a very narrow set of rules, and there is 208 00:10:49,679 --> 00:10:54,720 Speaker 1: a conflict of interest regimen that affects everyone in the 209 00:10:54,760 --> 00:10:57,280 Speaker 1: federal judiciary except for the Supreme Court. 210 00:10:57,480 --> 00:10:57,680 Speaker 2: Right. 211 00:10:58,280 --> 00:11:00,120 Speaker 4: Yeah, there's a Code of Conduct and then there is 212 00:11:00,160 --> 00:11:01,880 Speaker 4: a Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. 213 00:11:01,920 --> 00:11:03,120 Speaker 3: So just real quick. The Code of. 214 00:11:03,120 --> 00:11:05,840 Speaker 4: Conduct, the origins of it date back more than a 215 00:11:05,880 --> 00:11:09,600 Speaker 4: century but changed many times from the twenties to the seventies, 216 00:11:09,640 --> 00:11:12,079 Speaker 4: and then in the early seventies, the Judicial Conference, the 217 00:11:12,120 --> 00:11:15,640 Speaker 4: policymaking body, worked with the ABA and officially codified it 218 00:11:15,760 --> 00:11:19,439 Speaker 4: for the lower court judges. And so that code says 219 00:11:19,880 --> 00:11:23,520 Speaker 4: very clearly, judges should not their impartiality shouldn't be questioned. 220 00:11:23,559 --> 00:11:24,800 Speaker 3: They shouldn't engage in. 221 00:11:24,760 --> 00:11:28,920 Speaker 4: Extracurricular activities that impugne their integrity or the integrity. 222 00:11:28,400 --> 00:11:29,280 Speaker 3: Of the judiciary. 223 00:11:29,480 --> 00:11:32,160 Speaker 4: They shouldn't engage in political activities, they shouldn't engage in 224 00:11:32,160 --> 00:11:35,120 Speaker 4: fundraising activities, and on and on. They should treat all 225 00:11:35,200 --> 00:11:38,320 Speaker 4: comers into their courtroom with decorum. And if you fly 226 00:11:38,400 --> 00:11:41,400 Speaker 4: out one of these rules, there are consequences if you're 227 00:11:41,400 --> 00:11:44,000 Speaker 4: a lower court judge. The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 228 00:11:44,040 --> 00:11:45,679 Speaker 4: so that was nineteen eighty. That was a few years 229 00:11:45,720 --> 00:11:48,560 Speaker 4: after Watergate and after the Code, and after the Financial 230 00:11:48,559 --> 00:11:50,599 Speaker 4: Disclosure Law went into effect. That law was signed in 231 00:11:50,679 --> 00:11:54,520 Speaker 4: nineteen eighty by President Carter. That basically allows anybody. The 232 00:11:54,520 --> 00:11:56,400 Speaker 4: first two words of the law are any person, so 233 00:11:56,440 --> 00:11:58,680 Speaker 4: anyone in the United States. It sees a federal judge, 234 00:11:58,720 --> 00:12:00,720 Speaker 4: not a Supreme Court justice, but one of the twenty 235 00:12:00,720 --> 00:12:04,520 Speaker 4: five hundred lower court federal judges doing something that impunes 236 00:12:04,559 --> 00:12:07,880 Speaker 4: the integrity of judiciary, they can file a complaint against 237 00:12:07,920 --> 00:12:10,880 Speaker 4: that judge and they go through a process. It's this 238 00:12:10,960 --> 00:12:14,320 Speaker 4: adjudicatory process. There's fact finding. You can even hire outside 239 00:12:14,440 --> 00:12:16,920 Speaker 4: investigators to look into the behavior of a judge if 240 00:12:16,920 --> 00:12:20,040 Speaker 4: a judge's found to have committed misconduct. They're all sorts 241 00:12:20,080 --> 00:12:23,760 Speaker 4: of punishments, censure, reprimand public and private, and have certain 242 00:12:23,760 --> 00:12:25,480 Speaker 4: cases taken away from you. You have to go to 243 00:12:25,600 --> 00:12:29,720 Speaker 4: sensitivity training, anti harassment training. And it's because these punishments 244 00:12:29,760 --> 00:12:33,000 Speaker 4: are not doled out that frequently. It's pretty embarrassing. When 245 00:12:33,120 --> 00:12:36,479 Speaker 4: you have to make some amends or have some restitution, 246 00:12:36,600 --> 00:12:38,160 Speaker 4: it becomes a major national story. 247 00:12:38,200 --> 00:12:39,640 Speaker 3: It doesn't happen that often. 248 00:12:39,960 --> 00:12:42,560 Speaker 1: Well, and yet none of this applies to the nine 249 00:12:42,559 --> 00:12:43,560 Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice. 250 00:12:43,760 --> 00:12:47,600 Speaker 4: Why so that's a sort of age old question of 251 00:12:47,679 --> 00:12:49,800 Speaker 4: separation of powers judicial independence. 252 00:12:50,280 --> 00:12:51,360 Speaker 3: Well, I think so two reasons. 253 00:12:51,360 --> 00:12:55,200 Speaker 4: One is, the theory is that because the Constitution says 254 00:12:56,040 --> 00:12:59,360 Speaker 4: Congress creates the lower courts, then Congress can make rules 255 00:12:59,559 --> 00:13:02,720 Speaker 4: for the judication of complaints that exist within the lower courts. 256 00:13:03,160 --> 00:13:05,400 Speaker 4: So there is one Supreme Court. I mean, that's the 257 00:13:05,480 --> 00:13:08,080 Speaker 4: quote from Article three, Section one, there is one Supreme Court, 258 00:13:08,160 --> 00:13:10,439 Speaker 4: and then later on it says Congress can create the 259 00:13:10,480 --> 00:13:12,120 Speaker 4: lower court. So the theory is that it can make 260 00:13:12,160 --> 00:13:14,800 Speaker 4: the rules for the lower court. So nothing in the 261 00:13:14,880 --> 00:13:17,720 Speaker 4: Lass mentions the Supreme Court. And it was understood that 262 00:13:17,760 --> 00:13:20,680 Speaker 4: the Supreme Court sort of sits above the architecture that 263 00:13:20,760 --> 00:13:24,080 Speaker 4: was created by Congress, both from a structural perspective in 264 00:13:24,120 --> 00:13:26,360 Speaker 4: terms of how many lower courts there are and also 265 00:13:26,480 --> 00:13:29,840 Speaker 4: in terms of how a complaint process might work. The 266 00:13:29,880 --> 00:13:33,120 Speaker 4: other thing is, Okay, let's say that this process included 267 00:13:33,160 --> 00:13:36,280 Speaker 4: the justices. The justices are all equal, like I know, 268 00:13:36,280 --> 00:13:38,199 Speaker 4: there's been a lot of like misconceptions in the last 269 00:13:38,240 --> 00:13:40,520 Speaker 4: few weeks about Okay, the Chief Justice has to step 270 00:13:40,559 --> 00:13:43,680 Speaker 4: in and do X. He's first among equals, and it 271 00:13:43,679 --> 00:13:45,760 Speaker 4: would be a sort of an awkward situation and not 272 00:13:45,880 --> 00:13:48,800 Speaker 4: one especially knowing the personalities of the justices. I couldn't 273 00:13:48,840 --> 00:13:53,560 Speaker 4: really imagine like eight justices sanctioning Clarence Thomas, And how 274 00:13:53,600 --> 00:13:55,440 Speaker 4: would that even, Like what could they do? 275 00:13:55,640 --> 00:13:56,440 Speaker 3: Like what would they like? 276 00:13:56,480 --> 00:13:58,720 Speaker 4: They can't lower his salary, that's in the Constitution. They 277 00:13:58,720 --> 00:14:02,000 Speaker 4: can't take cases away from him. They can't call up 278 00:14:02,000 --> 00:14:03,320 Speaker 4: the House I mean, I guess it could call up 279 00:14:03,360 --> 00:14:05,200 Speaker 4: the House and say, hey, impeach him, but like they're 280 00:14:05,240 --> 00:14:05,800 Speaker 4: not going to. 281 00:14:06,000 --> 00:14:08,760 Speaker 1: They have no internal process for reprimands exactly. 282 00:14:08,840 --> 00:14:12,280 Speaker 4: And also what's so interesting about this conversation is that 283 00:14:12,320 --> 00:14:14,040 Speaker 4: a lot of the proposals that have been made in 284 00:14:14,080 --> 00:14:16,680 Speaker 4: response to this, it's like, Okay, we're not even talking 285 00:14:16,720 --> 00:14:18,920 Speaker 4: about in an internal process for Reprimand I was looking 286 00:14:19,000 --> 00:14:21,960 Speaker 4: at a bill today that Senator Murphy came out with 287 00:14:22,200 --> 00:14:24,280 Speaker 4: the Democrat from Connecticut that says, Okay, we want there 288 00:14:24,280 --> 00:14:26,440 Speaker 4: to be a Supreme Court Code of conduct, and the 289 00:14:26,480 --> 00:14:28,720 Speaker 4: second part of the bill says, okay, we're not going 290 00:14:28,760 --> 00:14:30,520 Speaker 4: to make you part of the complaint process. 291 00:14:30,840 --> 00:14:32,760 Speaker 3: Just create some office. 292 00:14:32,640 --> 00:14:36,680 Speaker 4: Somewhere in the court where there is the possibility that 293 00:14:36,840 --> 00:14:39,520 Speaker 4: complaints can be investigated. And there's a report that comes 294 00:14:39,560 --> 00:14:41,320 Speaker 4: out at the end of the year that says, these 295 00:14:41,360 --> 00:14:43,600 Speaker 4: are the issues related to ethics that the public brought 296 00:14:43,640 --> 00:14:46,080 Speaker 4: to the Court's attention, like no mention of reprimand no 297 00:14:46,160 --> 00:14:48,320 Speaker 4: mention of punishment, just like these are the issues the 298 00:14:48,320 --> 00:14:51,280 Speaker 4: American people are thinking about. And they're bristling at that, right, 299 00:14:51,320 --> 00:14:53,480 Speaker 4: I mean, the justices are wristling at that. So we 300 00:14:53,560 --> 00:14:54,280 Speaker 4: have a long ways to go. 301 00:14:54,360 --> 00:14:56,720 Speaker 1: Well, the other thing that might be useful as a 302 00:14:56,880 --> 00:15:00,640 Speaker 1: self governing principle would be the concept of embarrassment or shame. 303 00:15:01,240 --> 00:15:04,840 Speaker 1: But Clarence Thomas even lets us down on that front. 304 00:15:04,880 --> 00:15:08,040 Speaker 1: When this whole thing with Harlan Crowe blew into the open, 305 00:15:09,400 --> 00:15:11,640 Speaker 1: Thomas was quiet, I think for a day or two, 306 00:15:12,000 --> 00:15:14,600 Speaker 1: and then suddenly what came from him and from the 307 00:15:14,600 --> 00:15:18,360 Speaker 1: Court was, well, Harlan Crowe is a friend, and under 308 00:15:18,600 --> 00:15:22,080 Speaker 1: our disclosure guidelines, I'm allowed to accept trips from friends. 309 00:15:22,280 --> 00:15:25,080 Speaker 1: So no problem here. And you sort of wonder how 310 00:15:25,120 --> 00:15:29,320 Speaker 1: many paupers Clarence Thomas is friends with if you know, 311 00:15:29,400 --> 00:15:31,200 Speaker 1: they can't get him on a yacht, or get him 312 00:15:31,200 --> 00:15:33,040 Speaker 1: on a plane, or give a bunch of money to Yale, 313 00:15:33,680 --> 00:15:37,720 Speaker 1: or buy property from his mother or from him. And again, 314 00:15:37,920 --> 00:15:43,600 Speaker 1: to me, it just erodes confidence that the justices take 315 00:15:43,680 --> 00:15:47,360 Speaker 1: these issues seriously enough that they don't come out with 316 00:15:47,480 --> 00:15:54,600 Speaker 1: a probably legalistically acceptable response, but one that is neither 317 00:15:54,920 --> 00:15:58,440 Speaker 1: ethically or morally very credible. 318 00:15:58,800 --> 00:16:01,600 Speaker 4: We're asking for let's start with the bare minimum here 319 00:16:01,680 --> 00:16:04,640 Speaker 4: right again. I mean the serious proposals in Congress, the 320 00:16:04,680 --> 00:16:08,880 Speaker 4: serious proposals from groups no one's talking about taking power 321 00:16:08,960 --> 00:16:12,880 Speaker 4: away necessarily from the justices, or changing the way that 322 00:16:12,920 --> 00:16:16,200 Speaker 4: they hear cases, or you know, putting them in a 323 00:16:16,280 --> 00:16:19,680 Speaker 4: boat off in the Chesapeake Bay, which Congress could theoretically do. 324 00:16:20,200 --> 00:16:23,640 Speaker 4: It's just like, let's put you on par with the 325 00:16:23,680 --> 00:16:26,960 Speaker 4: rest of the judiciary and with the other top officials 326 00:16:26,960 --> 00:16:30,800 Speaker 4: and the other two branches. And that doesn't seem like 327 00:16:31,040 --> 00:16:33,080 Speaker 4: too big of an ask at all, all. 328 00:16:33,040 --> 00:16:34,920 Speaker 1: Right, Gabe, speaking of money, I want to take a 329 00:16:34,920 --> 00:16:37,640 Speaker 1: short break to hear from one of our sponsors, and 330 00:16:37,680 --> 00:16:44,640 Speaker 1: then we'll come right back to you. We're back with 331 00:16:44,720 --> 00:16:47,440 Speaker 1: Gabe Roth of Fix the Court, and we're talking about 332 00:16:47,440 --> 00:16:50,800 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court and financial conflicts of interest. Gabe on 333 00:16:50,960 --> 00:16:53,720 Speaker 1: just one quick fix for some of these financial conflicts 334 00:16:53,720 --> 00:16:57,960 Speaker 1: of interest problems. Should justices just be forbidden from owning 335 00:16:58,040 --> 00:17:04,359 Speaker 1: individual stocks? Lousiness journalists, for example, myself included, are forbidden 336 00:17:04,359 --> 00:17:08,600 Speaker 1: from owning individual stocks. We can own funds and other instruments. 337 00:17:08,840 --> 00:17:11,040 Speaker 1: Why not just apply that rule of the court. 338 00:17:11,400 --> 00:17:13,640 Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely, I think that should be a rule. 339 00:17:13,840 --> 00:17:16,119 Speaker 4: Last year, a law was passed that required judges and 340 00:17:16,240 --> 00:17:19,879 Speaker 4: justices stock transactions, details of which to be posted online 341 00:17:19,960 --> 00:17:22,920 Speaker 4: within forty five days, which is the stock Act, and 342 00:17:23,040 --> 00:17:25,880 Speaker 4: the justices and lower court judges were actually not part 343 00:17:25,920 --> 00:17:28,440 Speaker 4: of the Stock Act when it became law in twenty twelve, 344 00:17:28,520 --> 00:17:31,399 Speaker 4: so we just got the judges and justices added to 345 00:17:31,440 --> 00:17:32,040 Speaker 4: the Stock Act. 346 00:17:32,440 --> 00:17:34,880 Speaker 3: But we're learning that even. 347 00:17:34,640 --> 00:17:36,359 Speaker 4: Though there's this database, and even though there's this big 348 00:17:36,400 --> 00:17:39,960 Speaker 4: Wall Street Journal expose about judicial conflicts of interest in stock, 349 00:17:40,359 --> 00:17:42,520 Speaker 4: the judges, well forget the justice for now, but the 350 00:17:42,600 --> 00:17:45,440 Speaker 4: judges are not selling as much stock as they are buying. 351 00:17:45,520 --> 00:17:47,040 Speaker 3: It's pretty even. So. 352 00:17:47,160 --> 00:17:49,800 Speaker 4: You know, I had hoped that after the law was passed, 353 00:17:49,800 --> 00:17:52,400 Speaker 4: after the database came out, all these judges would say, oh, hey, 354 00:17:52,520 --> 00:17:54,600 Speaker 4: I'm going to sell off all my stock. I'd see 355 00:17:54,600 --> 00:17:56,639 Speaker 4: the conflicts that the Wall Street Journal brought out in 356 00:17:56,680 --> 00:17:58,720 Speaker 4: their piece, and I think I'm going to go sell 357 00:17:58,760 --> 00:17:59,359 Speaker 4: all my stocks. 358 00:17:59,400 --> 00:18:01,680 Speaker 3: That has not happen. So because of. 359 00:18:01,600 --> 00:18:04,600 Speaker 4: That, I am more of the view now now that 360 00:18:04,640 --> 00:18:07,960 Speaker 4: we have the evidence that guess banning individual stock ownership, 361 00:18:07,960 --> 00:18:09,560 Speaker 4: both for members of Congress. 362 00:18:09,160 --> 00:18:11,280 Speaker 3: Which you know that had gained momentum last year but 363 00:18:11,359 --> 00:18:12,040 Speaker 3: sort of fell away. 364 00:18:12,280 --> 00:18:14,639 Speaker 4: But yeah, I think the justices should be included and 365 00:18:14,680 --> 00:18:17,440 Speaker 4: lower court judges to be included as well, and there 366 00:18:17,600 --> 00:18:20,280 Speaker 4: should be some news about that. In a few weeks, 367 00:18:20,359 --> 00:18:21,240 Speaker 4: so stay tuned. 368 00:18:21,600 --> 00:18:24,520 Speaker 1: I'm thinking of Chief Justice John Roberts and a big 369 00:18:24,560 --> 00:18:27,760 Speaker 1: block of Microsoft stock that he used to own. I 370 00:18:27,800 --> 00:18:30,399 Speaker 1: think he disposed of some of that. Let's start with 371 00:18:30,480 --> 00:18:32,760 Speaker 1: Roberts and just consider that as a case study. 372 00:18:33,160 --> 00:18:35,800 Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I mean to me, it's ridiculous that justices 373 00:18:35,880 --> 00:18:36,879 Speaker 3: own stock. 374 00:18:37,040 --> 00:18:40,760 Speaker 4: Right, there are one hundred different ways, especially nowadays, to 375 00:18:40,880 --> 00:18:44,000 Speaker 4: be engaged in the market without owning the stock at 376 00:18:44,000 --> 00:18:47,640 Speaker 4: individual companies, and Roberts owned quarter million, half a million 377 00:18:47,680 --> 00:18:50,000 Speaker 4: dollars of Microsoft stock for the first ten years he 378 00:18:50,119 --> 00:18:50,680 Speaker 4: was on the court. 379 00:18:50,800 --> 00:18:51,560 Speaker 3: It made no sense. 380 00:18:51,560 --> 00:18:54,600 Speaker 4: Again, Microsoft is not only a litigant before the Supreme 381 00:18:54,600 --> 00:18:57,840 Speaker 4: Court all the time, but Microsoft files amicus brief friends 382 00:18:57,840 --> 00:18:59,720 Speaker 4: of the Court brief so they're appearing in other ways. 383 00:19:00,000 --> 00:19:02,880 Speaker 4: There's no law right that says, Okay, if it's Microsoft 384 00:19:02,960 --> 00:19:05,400 Speaker 4: versus Dough and you own Microsoft, you have to recuse. 385 00:19:05,680 --> 00:19:08,359 Speaker 4: But if it's Intel versus Dough and you own Microsoft, 386 00:19:08,400 --> 00:19:11,720 Speaker 4: and Microsoft files a brief in favor of the Intel position, 387 00:19:12,200 --> 00:19:14,800 Speaker 4: you don't have to recuse, which is a ridiculous and 388 00:19:14,920 --> 00:19:18,080 Speaker 4: indefensible law. And not only that Microsoft got smart, they 389 00:19:18,119 --> 00:19:21,440 Speaker 4: stopped sending briefs in Intel cases, and in other tech 390 00:19:21,480 --> 00:19:23,840 Speaker 4: cases they had, they just spent money and to have 391 00:19:23,880 --> 00:19:27,160 Speaker 4: a third party trade association that they weren't supporting send 392 00:19:27,160 --> 00:19:29,840 Speaker 4: in cases and Intel and Oracle and Google and all 393 00:19:29,840 --> 00:19:32,480 Speaker 4: these other cases that would benefit them in other tech 394 00:19:32,520 --> 00:19:35,400 Speaker 4: companies if they won. So to me, it's not defensible. 395 00:19:35,480 --> 00:19:37,399 Speaker 4: Neil Gore Sutch, when he was nominated to be a 396 00:19:37,440 --> 00:19:40,880 Speaker 4: judge in the Tenth Circuit in the mid two thousands, 397 00:19:41,040 --> 00:19:44,359 Speaker 4: sold all of his individual stock. I think Clarence Thomas 398 00:19:44,440 --> 00:19:47,119 Speaker 4: has never owned individual stock. He might have owned one company. 399 00:19:47,119 --> 00:19:47,639 Speaker 3: I think he might have. 400 00:19:47,640 --> 00:19:50,240 Speaker 4: Owned like Berkshire Shares for a few years. But Justice 401 00:19:50,320 --> 00:19:53,399 Speaker 4: Ginsberg sold her stock pretty soon after joining the court. 402 00:19:53,600 --> 00:19:56,400 Speaker 4: Chief Justice Roberts actually sold two stocks a few weeks ago. 403 00:19:56,760 --> 00:19:59,920 Speaker 4: So now he's down to two companies, Thermo Fischer Scientific 404 00:20:01,000 --> 00:20:02,560 Speaker 4: and Lam Research. 405 00:20:03,280 --> 00:20:07,120 Speaker 1: Okay, and this will bring us back to Clarence Thomas again. 406 00:20:07,160 --> 00:20:10,480 Speaker 1: But should justice has recused themselves from matters that intersect 407 00:20:11,040 --> 00:20:13,600 Speaker 1: with their spouse's professional pursuits. 408 00:20:14,200 --> 00:20:15,760 Speaker 4: I think that depends. I mean, I hate to give 409 00:20:15,800 --> 00:20:18,000 Speaker 4: the lawyerly and I'm not even a lawyer, but I 410 00:20:18,000 --> 00:20:20,199 Speaker 4: guess I play one. On podcasts, I would say it depends. 411 00:20:20,240 --> 00:20:22,840 Speaker 4: I think that you know, there's a discrete difference between 412 00:20:22,920 --> 00:20:27,560 Speaker 4: say Jane Roberts, who's a recruiter and happens to have 413 00:20:27,640 --> 00:20:30,119 Speaker 4: recruited people who may work at firms who then have 414 00:20:30,240 --> 00:20:32,119 Speaker 4: cases before the court. It's sort of this like a 415 00:20:32,200 --> 00:20:34,679 Speaker 4: to b the seed relationship that was recently reported on 416 00:20:35,240 --> 00:20:39,840 Speaker 4: versus something where a spouse has a particular knowledge or 417 00:20:39,840 --> 00:20:42,320 Speaker 4: facts of the case. So when you're talking about the 418 00:20:42,680 --> 00:20:47,639 Speaker 4: attempt by Arizona Republicans to overturn the election results, there 419 00:20:48,280 --> 00:20:53,360 Speaker 4: Ginny was lobbying for Republicans in Arizona to do just that. 420 00:20:53,480 --> 00:20:55,560 Speaker 4: So that to me is a little bit more direct 421 00:20:55,600 --> 00:20:58,159 Speaker 4: in terms of either the actual content. 422 00:20:58,000 --> 00:21:00,840 Speaker 3: Or per the federal law supposed to recuse. 423 00:21:00,880 --> 00:21:04,280 Speaker 4: Even if a justice's quote impartiality might reasonably be questioned, 424 00:21:04,280 --> 00:21:06,119 Speaker 4: you and I are reasonable, well, at least I am. 425 00:21:06,240 --> 00:21:10,080 Speaker 3: I think okay, you and I are reasonable. 426 00:21:09,640 --> 00:21:12,280 Speaker 4: People, and I think that we would both say that 427 00:21:12,320 --> 00:21:16,119 Speaker 4: there is clearly a potential for conflict in the Genny 428 00:21:16,119 --> 00:21:20,600 Speaker 4: Thomas example, given her involvement with the elector's situation in Arizona. 429 00:21:19,960 --> 00:21:22,280 Speaker 1: And well beyond that. Jenny Thomas was employed by the 430 00:21:22,280 --> 00:21:27,119 Speaker 1: Heritage Foundation, a conservative group that engages an activism around 431 00:21:27,160 --> 00:21:30,119 Speaker 1: issues it cares about. We know now that she was 432 00:21:30,280 --> 00:21:34,159 Speaker 1: texting with Donald Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows prior 433 00:21:34,240 --> 00:21:38,560 Speaker 1: to the January sixth insurrection, raising alarm bells with Meadows 434 00:21:38,560 --> 00:21:41,040 Speaker 1: that somehow the election might have been stolen from Trump. 435 00:21:41,640 --> 00:21:44,879 Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas has had to rule on a number of 436 00:21:44,960 --> 00:21:48,320 Speaker 1: things that affect Donald Trump directly, including whether or not 437 00:21:48,320 --> 00:21:54,000 Speaker 1: to release his tax returns to Congress, and presumably some 438 00:21:54,080 --> 00:21:57,480 Speaker 1: of the litigation around January sixth may eventually end up 439 00:21:57,480 --> 00:21:58,680 Speaker 1: in the Supreme Court as well. 440 00:21:59,280 --> 00:22:01,760 Speaker 4: And Jenny tom signed that letter saying that the January 441 00:22:01,800 --> 00:22:03,399 Speaker 4: sixth committee was treasonous. 442 00:22:03,560 --> 00:22:07,760 Speaker 1: So correct, correct, So she is this sort of hornet's 443 00:22:07,840 --> 00:22:12,520 Speaker 1: nest of issues that conflict with the integrity and the 444 00:22:12,640 --> 00:22:16,400 Speaker 1: life and the domain of the Supreme Court. Shouldn't Clarence 445 00:22:16,440 --> 00:22:20,239 Speaker 1: Thomas her husband stay a mile away from anything that 446 00:22:20,280 --> 00:22:21,960 Speaker 1: affects anything that she's been doing. 447 00:22:22,800 --> 00:22:25,919 Speaker 4: Yeah, I think in a large part, yes, I'm a 448 00:22:25,960 --> 00:22:29,280 Speaker 4: little bit more sympathetic to some of the Heritage Foundation 449 00:22:30,119 --> 00:22:35,080 Speaker 4: work because Heritage was not a litigant before the court. 450 00:22:35,240 --> 00:22:37,320 Speaker 4: Jinny didn't work on any of the amicus briefs that 451 00:22:37,400 --> 00:22:40,199 Speaker 4: Heritage put before the Court, and Heritage was not the 452 00:22:40,200 --> 00:22:44,399 Speaker 4: only group that was lobbying or agitating for just to 453 00:22:44,400 --> 00:22:47,520 Speaker 4: give an example, the repeal of Obamacare or the invalidation 454 00:22:47,600 --> 00:22:50,440 Speaker 4: of Obamacare by the Supreme Court. But in terms of 455 00:22:50,480 --> 00:22:53,120 Speaker 4: the scope of the amount of work that she has done, 456 00:22:53,280 --> 00:22:55,760 Speaker 4: that sort of can graft itself onto the work of 457 00:22:55,840 --> 00:22:58,639 Speaker 4: the Supreme Court, it is unique. At the same time, 458 00:22:58,800 --> 00:23:03,680 Speaker 4: it is completely reasonable to want her and any other 459 00:23:03,760 --> 00:23:05,760 Speaker 4: Supreme Court spouse to be able to do their job 460 00:23:05,880 --> 00:23:08,480 Speaker 4: in so far as they please, even if it's getting 461 00:23:08,480 --> 00:23:11,159 Speaker 4: close to the point and not reaching it. But I think, really, 462 00:23:11,200 --> 00:23:14,399 Speaker 4: to me, it's just the various scopes around January sixth 463 00:23:14,400 --> 00:23:17,359 Speaker 4: and trying to overturn the twenty twenty election that really 464 00:23:17,440 --> 00:23:20,520 Speaker 4: hits at the heart of the recusal law, especially when 465 00:23:20,560 --> 00:23:22,239 Speaker 4: even if you look further down on the recusal law, 466 00:23:22,240 --> 00:23:25,720 Speaker 4: it says justice shall recuse when their or their spouse's 467 00:23:25,760 --> 00:23:26,960 Speaker 4: interest might be impacted. 468 00:23:27,160 --> 00:23:29,080 Speaker 3: We don't know who was paying Jenny Thomas to do 469 00:23:29,160 --> 00:23:29,600 Speaker 3: this work. 470 00:23:29,640 --> 00:23:32,879 Speaker 4: It's very possible she was being paid to contact the 471 00:23:32,920 --> 00:23:35,480 Speaker 4: Arizona I mean, it's unclear really if she was paid 472 00:23:35,560 --> 00:23:37,800 Speaker 4: or not, but maybe she was paid to text with 473 00:23:37,840 --> 00:23:41,040 Speaker 4: Mark Meadows try to reach out to the Arizona, Wisconsin 474 00:23:41,080 --> 00:23:44,480 Speaker 4: electors and sign the letter about January sixth committee. So 475 00:23:44,680 --> 00:23:47,040 Speaker 4: to me, I think because that word interest is later 476 00:23:47,119 --> 00:23:49,360 Speaker 4: in the law, that to me also just gives more 477 00:23:49,400 --> 00:23:51,520 Speaker 4: credence to this view that he should have refused in 478 00:23:51,520 --> 00:23:53,080 Speaker 4: all January six related cases. 479 00:23:53,400 --> 00:23:56,239 Speaker 1: Let's talk about some other conflicts of interests that come 480 00:23:56,280 --> 00:23:59,560 Speaker 1: to mind for you. An interesting example comes up with 481 00:23:59,680 --> 00:24:03,320 Speaker 1: sat I or right and booking big blocks of hotel 482 00:24:03,400 --> 00:24:06,199 Speaker 1: rooms for her and her family members. Talk to me 483 00:24:06,200 --> 00:24:07,320 Speaker 1: about that one. 484 00:24:07,560 --> 00:24:07,879 Speaker 3: Yeah. 485 00:24:07,920 --> 00:24:10,800 Speaker 4: So, as justices do, and you know we're getting into 486 00:24:10,800 --> 00:24:13,280 Speaker 4: that season right now, they give talks or asked to 487 00:24:13,320 --> 00:24:17,639 Speaker 4: give talks at commencements at universities. Justice Jackson actually was 488 00:24:17,680 --> 00:24:20,600 Speaker 4: just announced as the commencement speaker for both bu Law 489 00:24:20,760 --> 00:24:23,560 Speaker 4: and American Law towards the end of May, and so 490 00:24:23,600 --> 00:24:25,800 Speaker 4: back in twenty sixteen, Justice Sotomayor was asked to be 491 00:24:25,800 --> 00:24:28,240 Speaker 4: the commencement speaker at the University of Rhode Island where 492 00:24:28,600 --> 00:24:30,479 Speaker 4: someone close to her, I don't know if it's her godson, 493 00:24:30,560 --> 00:24:33,240 Speaker 4: but someone close to her was graduating. And she agreed, 494 00:24:33,720 --> 00:24:35,919 Speaker 4: but she did not put the trip on her annual 495 00:24:35,960 --> 00:24:39,680 Speaker 4: financial disclosure, which you know justices make mistakes. 496 00:24:39,680 --> 00:24:40,320 Speaker 3: It's one trip. 497 00:24:40,359 --> 00:24:42,080 Speaker 4: Well, it turned out to be actually six trips that 498 00:24:42,160 --> 00:24:44,080 Speaker 4: year that she forgot to put on her financial disclosure, 499 00:24:44,080 --> 00:24:46,840 Speaker 4: which we'll get to. But with the Rhode Island trip, 500 00:24:47,000 --> 00:24:50,119 Speaker 4: she was flown business class. She was given up to 501 00:24:50,359 --> 00:24:53,080 Speaker 4: eleven hotel rooms at the nicest hotel in the state 502 00:24:53,119 --> 00:24:56,320 Speaker 4: of Rhode Island. They purchased one hundred and fifty of 503 00:24:56,359 --> 00:24:58,760 Speaker 4: her books, which happens a lot when you go somewhere, 504 00:24:58,760 --> 00:25:01,439 Speaker 4: but based on the royal agreement, would have netted her 505 00:25:01,600 --> 00:25:04,520 Speaker 4: several hundred, if not one thousand, dollars. She had a 506 00:25:04,520 --> 00:25:07,560 Speaker 4: motorcade taking her all around town to and from the airport. 507 00:25:07,760 --> 00:25:10,399 Speaker 4: She got a robe and a collar thingy, mortar board, 508 00:25:10,520 --> 00:25:10,919 Speaker 4: I mean. 509 00:25:10,760 --> 00:25:12,920 Speaker 1: Some of those things you can't hold against dr I think, 510 00:25:12,960 --> 00:25:15,440 Speaker 1: like a motorcade. She's a justice on the Supreme Court. 511 00:25:15,560 --> 00:25:18,120 Speaker 1: She gets a robe at an event. But when it's 512 00:25:18,160 --> 00:25:21,439 Speaker 1: her and possibly a couple of other people traveling together 513 00:25:21,600 --> 00:25:24,320 Speaker 1: and they're given a whole block of hotel rooms, presumably 514 00:25:24,359 --> 00:25:27,520 Speaker 1: taking up an entire floor, it raises an eyebrow. 515 00:25:27,920 --> 00:25:29,359 Speaker 3: It does, and it wasn't reported. 516 00:25:29,440 --> 00:25:32,479 Speaker 4: Like again, two things, One it should be reported and 517 00:25:32,520 --> 00:25:35,440 Speaker 4: two under the disclosure law, if you were a member 518 00:25:35,480 --> 00:25:38,440 Speaker 4: of Congress and you did the same thing that Sodomior did, 519 00:25:38,600 --> 00:25:40,720 Speaker 4: you would have to file a report thirty days after 520 00:25:40,720 --> 00:25:42,640 Speaker 4: that you got back from the trip that said exactly 521 00:25:42,680 --> 00:25:45,320 Speaker 4: how much was spent on your hotel block? 522 00:25:45,800 --> 00:25:48,159 Speaker 3: Right, that's a big deal. The fact that we're not 523 00:25:48,200 --> 00:25:49,119 Speaker 3: even getting numbers. 524 00:25:49,400 --> 00:25:52,680 Speaker 4: It's very different if you're giving someone a burger at 525 00:25:53,240 --> 00:25:56,400 Speaker 4: Burger's Bar versus you know, Filet Mignon, and if you're 526 00:25:56,400 --> 00:25:58,800 Speaker 4: staying at the residence end versus the Ritz. So I think, 527 00:25:58,840 --> 00:26:01,000 Speaker 4: to me, you know that that sort of was it 528 00:26:01,000 --> 00:26:06,760 Speaker 4: a really potent example of how short the judiciary's disclosure's 529 00:26:06,840 --> 00:26:08,880 Speaker 4: law are compared to those in the other branches. 530 00:26:09,119 --> 00:26:11,399 Speaker 1: Should the Court should members of the Supreme Court refuse 531 00:26:11,480 --> 00:26:12,560 Speaker 1: to take speaking fees? 532 00:26:13,000 --> 00:26:14,840 Speaker 3: Well, okay, so there. 533 00:26:15,640 --> 00:26:17,920 Speaker 4: That's tough because I probably would have answered this question 534 00:26:18,000 --> 00:26:20,480 Speaker 4: differently a few years ago, in terms of sort of 535 00:26:20,480 --> 00:26:23,560 Speaker 4: a larger question of should justices be flown certain places 536 00:26:23,560 --> 00:26:25,960 Speaker 4: to give talks? I would have said, yeah, fine, great, 537 00:26:25,960 --> 00:26:28,280 Speaker 4: we love seeing the justices in public. I think it's 538 00:26:28,280 --> 00:26:30,880 Speaker 4: important for the American people to see justice in action 539 00:26:30,960 --> 00:26:32,640 Speaker 4: and to understand what our judiciary does. 540 00:26:32,680 --> 00:26:34,000 Speaker 3: I mean, like them or had them. 541 00:26:34,000 --> 00:26:37,000 Speaker 4: They're all nine smart, incredibly accomplished individuals, and I think 542 00:26:37,080 --> 00:26:40,560 Speaker 4: everyone would learn from their lives stories. But in recent 543 00:26:40,680 --> 00:26:44,240 Speaker 4: years I've become really, really concerned with the frequency with 544 00:26:44,280 --> 00:26:47,639 Speaker 4: which justices are going out and speaking solely to the 545 00:26:47,720 --> 00:26:52,000 Speaker 4: home team. So Justice Barrett when she leaves DC, she's 546 00:26:52,000 --> 00:26:54,960 Speaker 4: deeply conservative, She's going to Notre Dame. She's going to 547 00:26:55,000 --> 00:26:58,159 Speaker 4: the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. She's teaching 548 00:26:58,200 --> 00:27:01,640 Speaker 4: at the Notre Dame program in London. Justice Kavanaugh is 549 00:27:01,840 --> 00:27:05,679 Speaker 4: being paid by George Mason University, a deeply conservative university, 550 00:27:05,680 --> 00:27:08,800 Speaker 4: and the Antonin Scalia School of Law. Neil Gore Sutch 551 00:27:08,880 --> 00:27:12,080 Speaker 4: is being paid by George Mason's School of Law. Justice 552 00:27:12,119 --> 00:27:15,240 Speaker 4: Alito was just in Rome and his trip was paid 553 00:27:15,280 --> 00:27:18,719 Speaker 4: for by the Religious Liberty Institute. Many of the justices 554 00:27:18,720 --> 00:27:22,440 Speaker 4: were recently at the Federalist Society National Convention at Union 555 00:27:22,480 --> 00:27:24,560 Speaker 4: Station in DC back in November. I think all the 556 00:27:24,560 --> 00:27:28,919 Speaker 4: conservative justices besides Roberts were there. And then on the left, 557 00:27:29,200 --> 00:27:32,440 Speaker 4: Justice Sotomayor has recently been at the American Constitution Society. 558 00:27:32,480 --> 00:27:34,760 Speaker 4: So now I'm a little concerned, Right, it wasn't this 559 00:27:35,040 --> 00:27:37,959 Speaker 4: stark in the past. I mean, Justice Ginsburg definitely gave 560 00:27:38,000 --> 00:27:40,080 Speaker 4: a lot of thoughts before the National Organization of Women 561 00:27:40,200 --> 00:27:43,720 Speaker 4: and the Democratic Women's Leadership Council and what have you. 562 00:27:43,760 --> 00:27:45,840 Speaker 4: And Scalia spoke to TEA party groups a couple of times, 563 00:27:45,880 --> 00:27:47,960 Speaker 4: and it went to a few Koch Brothers retreats. But 564 00:27:48,000 --> 00:27:50,199 Speaker 4: I think you would always have a Kennedy or an 565 00:27:50,240 --> 00:27:54,080 Speaker 4: O'Connor or a Briar or a Stewart or Stevens that 566 00:27:54,080 --> 00:27:55,360 Speaker 4: would sort of speak to both. 567 00:27:55,160 --> 00:27:58,640 Speaker 3: Sides or two more neutral sites. So that is happening. 568 00:27:58,680 --> 00:28:01,840 Speaker 4: Unfortunately, from my research, appears to be happening less and less, 569 00:28:02,480 --> 00:28:04,680 Speaker 4: and I just wish the justices would sort of see 570 00:28:04,680 --> 00:28:06,480 Speaker 4: the writing on the wall, see the lack of trust 571 00:28:06,480 --> 00:28:08,679 Speaker 4: that the American people has in them, and actually do 572 00:28:08,840 --> 00:28:13,680 Speaker 4: more try to speak to either neutral or more ideologically 573 00:28:14,080 --> 00:28:16,000 Speaker 4: heterogeneous audiences. 574 00:28:16,520 --> 00:28:22,080 Speaker 1: They're supposed to cap their outside pay from non SCOTUS 575 00:28:22,200 --> 00:28:25,920 Speaker 1: related activities at thirty thousand dollars annually. Correct. 576 00:28:26,240 --> 00:28:28,159 Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I think it's going to go up this 577 00:28:28,240 --> 00:28:31,520 Speaker 4: year to maybe thirty two. But but but you got 578 00:28:31,560 --> 00:28:34,680 Speaker 4: to remember the exemption, which is book royalties. So that's 579 00:28:34,720 --> 00:28:37,040 Speaker 4: how you know they're making buck and you know all 580 00:28:37,040 --> 00:28:39,280 Speaker 4: the different ways to earn money as a justice. 581 00:28:39,320 --> 00:28:40,480 Speaker 3: I'm kind of okay with. 582 00:28:40,400 --> 00:28:42,040 Speaker 1: That, like teaching, for example. 583 00:28:42,400 --> 00:28:44,640 Speaker 4: So yeah, so teaching is captain about I think it's 584 00:28:44,680 --> 00:28:46,280 Speaker 4: thirty one thousand for this year. 585 00:28:46,280 --> 00:28:49,200 Speaker 1: And that's fine. They're the best, arguably some of the 586 00:28:49,200 --> 00:28:51,160 Speaker 1: best legal minds in the country. 587 00:28:51,040 --> 00:28:53,000 Speaker 4: And they're off for three months in the summer, right, 588 00:28:53,520 --> 00:28:55,440 Speaker 4: you know the old John Roberts quote the only people 589 00:28:55,440 --> 00:28:56,920 Speaker 4: in the country who get the summer off for school 590 00:28:57,000 --> 00:28:59,840 Speaker 4: children in Scotus justice, which is something Roberts said forty 591 00:29:00,040 --> 00:29:01,800 Speaker 4: years ago when he was working in the Reagan Justice 592 00:29:01,800 --> 00:29:04,640 Speaker 4: Department because at the time the justices were complaining about 593 00:29:04,640 --> 00:29:07,640 Speaker 4: their caseload when he was giving that rejoinder. And I 594 00:29:07,640 --> 00:29:09,920 Speaker 4: have no problem that they're able to earn thirty k 595 00:29:10,200 --> 00:29:12,040 Speaker 4: for outside teaching. You know, I think it would be 596 00:29:12,080 --> 00:29:14,560 Speaker 4: an incredible event to take a class. I mean, Justice 597 00:29:14,600 --> 00:29:17,320 Speaker 4: Kavanaugh was just in London teaching for Notre Dame and 598 00:29:17,400 --> 00:29:19,120 Speaker 4: Justice Barrett Iss going there in a couple of weeks. 599 00:29:19,440 --> 00:29:21,600 Speaker 4: You read some of the student comments or whatever, and 600 00:29:21,600 --> 00:29:22,920 Speaker 4: it's like it's life changing for them. 601 00:29:22,920 --> 00:29:23,920 Speaker 3: So, you know, good for them. 602 00:29:24,240 --> 00:29:27,520 Speaker 1: But you know, you mentioned book royalties. The book advances 603 00:29:27,560 --> 00:29:32,760 Speaker 1: often are massive. For example, Amy Cony Barrett, before I 604 00:29:32,800 --> 00:29:35,760 Speaker 1: think she even got sworn in as a Supreme Court justice, 605 00:29:36,560 --> 00:29:37,800 Speaker 1: landed a major book deal. 606 00:29:38,080 --> 00:29:42,120 Speaker 4: Again, yeah, we want smart, capable individuals to be on 607 00:29:42,160 --> 00:29:44,600 Speaker 4: the federal bench. They are making a lot of money. 608 00:29:45,160 --> 00:29:47,360 Speaker 4: If you're a lower federal court judge, like like two 609 00:29:47,440 --> 00:29:50,680 Speaker 4: twenty circuit judge, it's like two forty Scotus, it's like 610 00:29:50,720 --> 00:29:51,720 Speaker 4: two sixty two eighty. 611 00:29:52,080 --> 00:29:54,640 Speaker 1: That's a lot of money, though significantly lesson they'd make 612 00:29:54,680 --> 00:29:58,040 Speaker 1: in the private sector, presumably many millions less than they 613 00:29:58,040 --> 00:29:59,320 Speaker 1: would make in the private. 614 00:29:59,040 --> 00:30:02,160 Speaker 4: Sector, dificantly less significantly this and I don't want to 615 00:30:02,160 --> 00:30:04,000 Speaker 4: be in a situation where the only people who in 616 00:30:04,040 --> 00:30:06,680 Speaker 4: the future are judges and justices are people who are 617 00:30:06,800 --> 00:30:11,000 Speaker 4: uber wealthy and can afford to be judges and justices. 618 00:30:11,160 --> 00:30:13,880 Speaker 4: And again, quarter million dollars is a ton of money, 619 00:30:13,960 --> 00:30:17,160 Speaker 4: but in a capitalistic society, which we are, thankfully to 620 00:30:17,200 --> 00:30:18,800 Speaker 4: your point, it's like a tenth of what they could 621 00:30:18,840 --> 00:30:21,200 Speaker 4: be making on the open market. I'm okay with them 622 00:30:21,240 --> 00:30:24,520 Speaker 4: trying to supplement that income via book royalties. I don't 623 00:30:24,520 --> 00:30:26,320 Speaker 4: love the fact that the justices are going to like 624 00:30:26,520 --> 00:30:29,520 Speaker 4: the conservative imprints of Penguin books like the Javelin Group 625 00:30:29,560 --> 00:30:32,040 Speaker 4: is getting them a deal with a conservative Like I 626 00:30:32,040 --> 00:30:34,160 Speaker 4: don't love how they're sort of like putting on team 627 00:30:34,200 --> 00:30:36,600 Speaker 4: colors for that section, but again because they could be 628 00:30:36,640 --> 00:30:39,040 Speaker 4: earning so much other money doing so many other things. 629 00:30:39,160 --> 00:30:40,760 Speaker 3: But I think that you know, I'm okay with. 630 00:30:40,720 --> 00:30:42,840 Speaker 1: This, Gabe. I want to take one more break to 631 00:30:42,880 --> 00:30:45,160 Speaker 1: hear from our sponsor, and then we'll come right back 632 00:30:45,160 --> 00:30:53,480 Speaker 1: to you, and we're back with Gabe. Rotha fixed the Court. Gabe. 633 00:30:53,480 --> 00:30:57,320 Speaker 1: We talked piecemeal about some different solutions to these various 634 00:30:57,360 --> 00:31:01,840 Speaker 1: collisions and conflicts. You've propose a number of them along 635 00:31:01,880 --> 00:31:05,200 Speaker 1: the way, lay out what you think would be a 636 00:31:05,440 --> 00:31:09,480 Speaker 1: handy set of reforms that would clean up some of 637 00:31:09,480 --> 00:31:10,600 Speaker 1: these problems that we're seeing. 638 00:31:11,080 --> 00:31:12,920 Speaker 4: So, first of all, I do think that the justices 639 00:31:12,960 --> 00:31:16,760 Speaker 4: should be required to write and publish, after a public 640 00:31:16,760 --> 00:31:19,720 Speaker 4: comment period, a code of conduct for the Supreme Court, 641 00:31:20,080 --> 00:31:23,400 Speaker 4: so they have an expectation of what their behavior should 642 00:31:23,400 --> 00:31:25,760 Speaker 4: be in the public has an expectation of what the 643 00:31:25,960 --> 00:31:27,080 Speaker 4: justice's behavior should be. 644 00:31:27,120 --> 00:31:28,000 Speaker 3: So I think that's number one. 645 00:31:28,040 --> 00:31:29,920 Speaker 4: I think the second thing is the justices need to 646 00:31:29,960 --> 00:31:33,680 Speaker 4: follow the same rules when it comes to travel outside 647 00:31:33,760 --> 00:31:38,360 Speaker 4: income reimbursement and gifts and personal hospitality as the Senate 648 00:31:38,400 --> 00:31:39,000 Speaker 4: and the House does. 649 00:31:39,080 --> 00:31:39,200 Speaker 2: So. 650 00:31:39,240 --> 00:31:42,840 Speaker 4: That means having an ethics office approve certain trips thirty 651 00:31:42,920 --> 00:31:46,440 Speaker 4: days before the trips happen. It means the sponsors sending 652 00:31:46,480 --> 00:31:51,280 Speaker 4: in forms to the approving office so they know, Okay, 653 00:31:51,280 --> 00:31:53,760 Speaker 4: it's not some crazy junket where everyone's just going to 654 00:31:53,800 --> 00:31:56,200 Speaker 4: goof off for a week. It's a three day trip 655 00:31:56,240 --> 00:31:58,880 Speaker 4: where we're going to talk about the jurisprudence of I 656 00:31:58,920 --> 00:32:01,320 Speaker 4: don't know, the death penalty or something. And then the 657 00:32:01,520 --> 00:32:04,040 Speaker 4: justices themselves, after they return from the trip would have 658 00:32:04,080 --> 00:32:07,040 Speaker 4: to say within thirty days instead of having one line 659 00:32:07,040 --> 00:32:09,240 Speaker 4: on their annual disclosure report, which may or may not 660 00:32:09,320 --> 00:32:11,440 Speaker 4: ever come out or comes out months or years later. 661 00:32:11,840 --> 00:32:14,480 Speaker 4: Instead they do the thirty day post trip report that says, 662 00:32:14,480 --> 00:32:16,480 Speaker 4: this is how much was spent on my lodging, This 663 00:32:16,520 --> 00:32:17,800 Speaker 4: is how much was spent on my meals, This is 664 00:32:17,800 --> 00:32:20,960 Speaker 4: how much was spent on my transportation. In addition, I 665 00:32:21,000 --> 00:32:24,960 Speaker 4: would like to see, as I mentioned, more transparency around 666 00:32:25,000 --> 00:32:28,400 Speaker 4: the public appearances of the justices, Like it's ridiculous to 667 00:32:28,440 --> 00:32:30,360 Speaker 4: me that the justices don't have I mean, they have 668 00:32:30,400 --> 00:32:32,560 Speaker 4: a press office, but they never tell us where they're 669 00:32:32,600 --> 00:32:34,880 Speaker 4: going and when they're going there. Obviously I don't need 670 00:32:34,880 --> 00:32:37,000 Speaker 4: to know if they're going to visit their grandkids or something, 671 00:32:37,240 --> 00:32:39,760 Speaker 4: but if they're speaking at a public university. Just like 672 00:32:39,800 --> 00:32:41,560 Speaker 4: when I worked for a governor, I put out a 673 00:32:41,600 --> 00:32:43,920 Speaker 4: press release the morning before saying, hey, you know the 674 00:32:43,960 --> 00:32:46,280 Speaker 4: governor is going to be on Long Island tomorrow. This 675 00:32:46,320 --> 00:32:47,840 Speaker 4: is when press avail is and this is where you 676 00:32:47,880 --> 00:32:50,760 Speaker 4: can set up your tripods or whatever. Justices should be 677 00:32:50,800 --> 00:32:53,240 Speaker 4: doing the same thing. To your other point, I think 678 00:32:53,240 --> 00:32:55,480 Speaker 4: they should obviously be selling their stocks and be more 679 00:32:55,480 --> 00:32:59,720 Speaker 4: cognizant of their conflicts or potential conflicts of interest. And 680 00:33:00,080 --> 00:33:01,840 Speaker 4: I mean the biggest reform for me is term element 681 00:33:01,920 --> 00:33:03,680 Speaker 4: on the court. And so eighteen years is sort of 682 00:33:03,680 --> 00:33:07,880 Speaker 4: agreed upon conservative liberal like nine justices and your justice 683 00:33:07,920 --> 00:33:10,200 Speaker 4: every two years nine times two is eighteen. That means 684 00:33:10,200 --> 00:33:13,000 Speaker 4: every presidential term there would be two new justices, so 685 00:33:13,040 --> 00:33:15,360 Speaker 4: there would be a constant churn. So I think that 686 00:33:15,400 --> 00:33:17,320 Speaker 4: means that justices would want a more queue to the 687 00:33:17,320 --> 00:33:19,680 Speaker 4: fifty yard line and their jurisprudence, so we're not having 688 00:33:19,680 --> 00:33:22,120 Speaker 4: this constant ping pong. And then you would have ways 689 00:33:22,120 --> 00:33:25,479 Speaker 4: of sort of having justices fade into the sunset, there 690 00:33:25,480 --> 00:33:27,440 Speaker 4: would be life tenured on lower courts the rest of 691 00:33:27,440 --> 00:33:29,440 Speaker 4: their lives. They just wouldn't be hearing cases on scotus. 692 00:33:29,600 --> 00:33:31,200 Speaker 4: A way to fade into the sunset, so we're not 693 00:33:31,240 --> 00:33:32,440 Speaker 4: stuck with them for forty years. 694 00:33:32,960 --> 00:33:35,200 Speaker 1: You've pushed for other things like cameras in the court 695 00:33:35,280 --> 00:33:37,960 Speaker 1: room and greater media access to the process of the 696 00:33:38,000 --> 00:33:41,920 Speaker 1: court itself. And when we talked last year, I remember 697 00:33:42,040 --> 00:33:47,560 Speaker 1: you feeling pretty optimistic about the possibility of court reforms 698 00:33:48,320 --> 00:33:50,720 Speaker 1: coming through. How did that end up going from your 699 00:33:50,760 --> 00:33:52,800 Speaker 1: perspective a mixed bag. 700 00:33:52,880 --> 00:33:55,040 Speaker 4: I mean, I think that we still have live streaming 701 00:33:55,200 --> 00:33:58,600 Speaker 4: in the Supreme Court and all thirteen regional federal courts 702 00:33:58,600 --> 00:33:59,840 Speaker 4: of appeals called the Circuit Court. 703 00:34:00,120 --> 00:34:01,560 Speaker 3: That wasn't the case a couple of years ago. 704 00:34:01,600 --> 00:34:04,360 Speaker 4: A couple of years ago, it was the Court in DC, 705 00:34:04,560 --> 00:34:06,320 Speaker 4: the DC Circuit, in the Court in San Francisco, the 706 00:34:06,400 --> 00:34:08,400 Speaker 4: Ninth Circuit. We're the only two that were live streaming 707 00:34:08,440 --> 00:34:11,640 Speaker 4: their cases. And now every court live stream their cases. 708 00:34:11,680 --> 00:34:14,400 Speaker 4: Only a couple do video, but all of them at 709 00:34:14,480 --> 00:34:16,680 Speaker 4: least do audio. So I think that's important, But. 710 00:34:16,719 --> 00:34:19,239 Speaker 1: What about other reforms in addition to that? You know 711 00:34:19,280 --> 00:34:21,200 Speaker 1: what were you expecting in what happened? 712 00:34:21,920 --> 00:34:24,600 Speaker 4: Sure, I was expecting that the Wall Street Journal article 713 00:34:24,640 --> 00:34:26,520 Speaker 4: that found that one hundred and thirty one lower court 714 00:34:26,560 --> 00:34:29,640 Speaker 4: judges were hearing six hundred and eighty five cases despite 715 00:34:29,719 --> 00:34:32,520 Speaker 4: a conflict of interest due to their stock ownership. I 716 00:34:32,600 --> 00:34:35,000 Speaker 4: was expecting reform to come from that, and it did. 717 00:34:35,040 --> 00:34:37,080 Speaker 4: So Now we get, just like members of Congress, within 718 00:34:37,120 --> 00:34:39,520 Speaker 4: forty five days of a stock transaction, we get a 719 00:34:39,560 --> 00:34:42,400 Speaker 4: report from the judges on this database, and their annual 720 00:34:42,440 --> 00:34:45,279 Speaker 4: financial disclosures also have to be posted online. It used 721 00:34:45,320 --> 00:34:47,399 Speaker 4: to be get them in a thumb drive several years 722 00:34:47,440 --> 00:34:50,000 Speaker 4: after the fact, but now you get them online in 723 00:34:50,040 --> 00:34:52,200 Speaker 4: a database, much like you do for members of Congress. 724 00:34:52,200 --> 00:34:54,279 Speaker 4: And the database is still lagging a little behind. It's 725 00:34:54,320 --> 00:34:56,480 Speaker 4: not totally filled up yet, but they're working on it. 726 00:34:56,880 --> 00:34:58,359 Speaker 4: So I think that was really important. And the other 727 00:34:58,600 --> 00:35:01,040 Speaker 4: reform that I was really hoping pass and came very 728 00:35:01,040 --> 00:35:02,840 Speaker 4: close to, got pulled at the last minute from the 729 00:35:02,840 --> 00:35:05,000 Speaker 4: Senate floor. It's a bill that would make PACER free. 730 00:35:05,040 --> 00:35:07,200 Speaker 4: So PACER is the system that exists where if you 731 00:35:07,239 --> 00:35:10,160 Speaker 4: want to read a filing in federal court, you can 732 00:35:10,160 --> 00:35:12,360 Speaker 4: go to Supreme Court dot gov and read every filing 733 00:35:12,440 --> 00:35:15,120 Speaker 4: that at the Supreme Court for years and years and 734 00:35:15,200 --> 00:35:19,720 Speaker 4: years for free. Lower courts, the ninety four trial courts, 735 00:35:19,760 --> 00:35:23,040 Speaker 4: the ninety bankruptcy courts, the thirteen Federal Courts of Appeals, 736 00:35:23,520 --> 00:35:24,880 Speaker 4: hundreds of thousands of cases. 737 00:35:25,000 --> 00:35:25,719 Speaker 3: If you just want to. 738 00:35:25,680 --> 00:35:28,000 Speaker 4: Read a single filing, a single page of a filing, 739 00:35:28,040 --> 00:35:29,920 Speaker 4: it will cost you ten cents just to read the 740 00:35:29,920 --> 00:35:32,840 Speaker 4: page on your computer screen. It's a static PDF, but 741 00:35:33,760 --> 00:35:36,400 Speaker 4: they charge you ten cents a page, which gets expensive 742 00:35:36,880 --> 00:35:39,200 Speaker 4: very quickly. The Judiciary makes one hundred and fifty million 743 00:35:39,239 --> 00:35:40,719 Speaker 4: dollars a year from that. So there was a bill 744 00:35:40,800 --> 00:35:43,800 Speaker 4: to make it free, to zero it out, and because 745 00:35:43,800 --> 00:35:46,600 Speaker 4: of some concerns over how to fill in one hundred 746 00:35:46,600 --> 00:35:49,720 Speaker 4: and fifty million dollar hole with other funding, it didn't pass. 747 00:35:49,760 --> 00:35:51,840 Speaker 4: But we're ramping up again and hopefully it'll pass in 748 00:35:51,840 --> 00:35:54,000 Speaker 4: this Congress because it's a tax on the American people 749 00:35:54,120 --> 00:35:55,880 Speaker 4: to the two of one hundred and fifty million dollars 750 00:35:56,080 --> 00:35:58,960 Speaker 4: to make us read static PDFs ten cents a pop. 751 00:35:59,360 --> 00:36:01,759 Speaker 1: Yeah, we've talked about the media keeping an eye on 752 00:36:01,840 --> 00:36:04,120 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. You and fix the Court have kept 753 00:36:04,160 --> 00:36:07,080 Speaker 1: an eye on the Supreme Court. Obviously, the Biden administration 754 00:36:07,280 --> 00:36:09,839 Speaker 1: conducted a review of the Court that included a number 755 00:36:09,880 --> 00:36:13,520 Speaker 1: of issues, including financial conflicts of interest, but there still 756 00:36:13,600 --> 00:36:17,640 Speaker 1: hasn't been a sweeping set of reforms around financial conflicts 757 00:36:17,840 --> 00:36:21,680 Speaker 1: and greater disclosure. There's a minimal baseline of disclosure. Can 758 00:36:21,760 --> 00:36:24,040 Speaker 1: the court be reformed from the outside or does it 759 00:36:24,120 --> 00:36:25,359 Speaker 1: have to be reformed from within. 760 00:36:25,880 --> 00:36:28,000 Speaker 4: I think it's a combination, I really do. I think 761 00:36:28,080 --> 00:36:31,080 Speaker 4: that the Disclosure's law where now all the disclosures have 762 00:36:31,160 --> 00:36:32,960 Speaker 4: to be put online. I mean, to your point, they're 763 00:36:33,440 --> 00:36:35,920 Speaker 4: bare minimum, like bare bones, it's not a lot of information, 764 00:36:36,160 --> 00:36:37,600 Speaker 4: but at least they have to be put online. 765 00:36:37,800 --> 00:36:39,400 Speaker 3: That was a law that Congress passed. 766 00:36:39,719 --> 00:36:42,520 Speaker 4: The Supreme Court itself was actually considering putting their disclosures 767 00:36:42,600 --> 00:36:46,439 Speaker 4: on Supreme Court dot gov, but it didn't happen or whatever. 768 00:36:46,640 --> 00:36:48,040 Speaker 4: So I think it's going to take just more and 769 00:36:48,120 --> 00:36:52,080 Speaker 4: more agitating and more and more pro publica style reporting 770 00:36:52,200 --> 00:36:54,279 Speaker 4: to get things done. And I think John Robberts would 771 00:36:54,360 --> 00:36:57,960 Speaker 4: rather the courts police themselves and reform themselves. And he 772 00:36:58,239 --> 00:37:00,800 Speaker 4: is absolutely taking advantage of all the grid luck in Congress. 773 00:37:00,880 --> 00:37:02,680 Speaker 4: You know, he's more than happy that it's a divided 774 00:37:02,760 --> 00:37:05,920 Speaker 4: Congress and that it's very hard to get things passed. 775 00:37:06,239 --> 00:37:09,360 Speaker 4: But I think from an institutional integrity and trust perspective, 776 00:37:09,760 --> 00:37:12,800 Speaker 4: if him and his colleagues continue to be bullheaded and 777 00:37:12,920 --> 00:37:18,200 Speaker 4: not making any modernization and ethics changes, then the last 778 00:37:18,560 --> 00:37:21,040 Speaker 4: glimmer of faith that we have in the Court is 779 00:37:21,080 --> 00:37:22,160 Speaker 4: going to quickly fade away. 780 00:37:22,440 --> 00:37:24,080 Speaker 1: Well, and that brings us, you know, in a way, 781 00:37:24,160 --> 00:37:27,520 Speaker 1: back to the Chief Justice again, John Roberts. Roberts has 782 00:37:27,600 --> 00:37:31,799 Speaker 1: also resisted the idea of an outside monitoring agencies such 783 00:37:31,840 --> 00:37:34,960 Speaker 1: as the Office of Government Ethics, which keeps an eye 784 00:37:35,080 --> 00:37:38,600 Speaker 1: on members of the federal government and potential financial conflicts. 785 00:37:39,480 --> 00:37:42,080 Speaker 1: He doesn't want an agency like that keeping tabs on 786 00:37:42,120 --> 00:37:42,960 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. 787 00:37:43,560 --> 00:37:43,719 Speaker 2: Why. 788 00:37:44,719 --> 00:37:47,759 Speaker 4: I mean, the best quote is from Justice Ginsburg on 789 00:37:47,840 --> 00:37:50,360 Speaker 4: that she said, in response to a Chuck Grassley Senator 790 00:37:50,400 --> 00:37:53,279 Speaker 4: Grassley proposal for an inspector general, that sounds like some 791 00:37:53,480 --> 00:37:57,080 Speaker 4: sort of Soviet level politbureau or institution, which is ridiculous. 792 00:37:57,120 --> 00:37:59,680 Speaker 4: But you know, I think that he just believes that 793 00:37:59,840 --> 00:38:03,600 Speaker 4: he can they can police themselves. I mean, I don't 794 00:38:03,880 --> 00:38:06,320 Speaker 4: quite get it based on all of the evidence that 795 00:38:06,480 --> 00:38:07,440 Speaker 4: we've seen that. 796 00:38:07,640 --> 00:38:09,839 Speaker 1: Just keeps coming out and out and out that they 797 00:38:09,840 --> 00:38:12,160 Speaker 1: actually aren't policing themselves exactly. 798 00:38:12,280 --> 00:38:15,800 Speaker 4: And I think the other problem is is that he potentially, 799 00:38:16,080 --> 00:38:17,560 Speaker 4: you know, he doesn't want to set himself up for 800 00:38:17,640 --> 00:38:21,240 Speaker 4: failure because I don't know if he has the institutional backing, 801 00:38:21,360 --> 00:38:22,879 Speaker 4: and forget the jurorsprudential backing. 802 00:38:22,920 --> 00:38:24,280 Speaker 3: He definitely doesn't have that anymore. 803 00:38:24,640 --> 00:38:27,040 Speaker 4: Though he would go along with like ninety percent of 804 00:38:27,080 --> 00:38:29,320 Speaker 4: the conservative project, he just wouldn't do it so stridently. 805 00:38:29,719 --> 00:38:31,560 Speaker 4: He doesn't have the institutional backing that I think some 806 00:38:31,680 --> 00:38:33,800 Speaker 4: of his predecessors would have. So having any sort of 807 00:38:33,880 --> 00:38:36,479 Speaker 4: ethics body, you know, people would just flo out the rules, 808 00:38:36,520 --> 00:38:38,080 Speaker 4: and so what point would there be to have them? 809 00:38:38,160 --> 00:38:39,680 Speaker 3: This is view's that's what I think. 810 00:38:40,239 --> 00:38:43,240 Speaker 1: One last question for you, what have you learned about 811 00:38:43,320 --> 00:38:47,080 Speaker 1: financial conflicts on today's court that you didn't know about 812 00:38:47,239 --> 00:38:50,960 Speaker 1: or didn't understand when you first began fashioning yourself as 813 00:38:51,000 --> 00:38:53,200 Speaker 1: a very astute Supreme Court watchdog. 814 00:38:54,440 --> 00:38:55,040 Speaker 3: I think there's just. 815 00:38:55,280 --> 00:38:58,400 Speaker 4: Many ways to influence the court in which money is involved. 816 00:38:58,440 --> 00:39:00,920 Speaker 4: That this is the general public does and realize it 817 00:39:01,080 --> 00:39:05,359 Speaker 4: is a multi billion with a B dollar industry influencing 818 00:39:05,600 --> 00:39:07,840 Speaker 4: the justices. When you think, oh, they only hear seventy 819 00:39:07,960 --> 00:39:11,240 Speaker 4: cases a year, But on top of that they're turning 820 00:39:11,320 --> 00:39:13,640 Speaker 4: down fifty five hundred cases a year, and those are 821 00:39:13,719 --> 00:39:16,080 Speaker 4: decisions in and of themselves to turn down those cases. 822 00:39:16,480 --> 00:39:18,640 Speaker 4: I guess half of them are prisoners, so fine. Prisoner 823 00:39:18,680 --> 00:39:20,719 Speaker 4: petitions are generally not hurt by the court, so maybe 824 00:39:20,840 --> 00:39:23,440 Speaker 4: only twenty seven hundred petitions, But the rest of them 825 00:39:23,560 --> 00:39:27,000 Speaker 4: there are very high powered, very wealthy, moneyed interests. 826 00:39:26,640 --> 00:39:29,520 Speaker 3: That are trying to get the justices to do X, 827 00:39:29,640 --> 00:39:30,000 Speaker 3: Y or z. 828 00:39:30,640 --> 00:39:33,360 Speaker 4: Relationships are not always clear to how close the justices 829 00:39:33,360 --> 00:39:35,760 Speaker 4: are to these interests, but it's something that is worth 830 00:39:36,520 --> 00:39:39,800 Speaker 4: looking at, worth studying, and worth trying to reform, because 831 00:39:39,840 --> 00:39:42,480 Speaker 4: if not, it's not a good situation, just give it. 832 00:39:42,560 --> 00:39:43,799 Speaker 3: I mean, the quantities of money are. 833 00:39:43,760 --> 00:39:47,120 Speaker 4: Insane, so that to me just sort of implies maybe 834 00:39:47,200 --> 00:39:49,759 Speaker 4: not actual corruption, but the appearance is pretty bad. 835 00:39:50,200 --> 00:39:52,480 Speaker 1: Gabe, we've run out of time. Thank you so much 836 00:39:52,520 --> 00:39:54,399 Speaker 1: for joining us. I hope you can come back soon. 837 00:39:54,760 --> 00:39:55,719 Speaker 3: Would love to. Thanks Tim. 838 00:39:56,760 --> 00:39:59,439 Speaker 1: Gabe Roth is the founder and executive director of Fix 839 00:39:59,520 --> 00:40:03,400 Speaker 1: the Court, a nonpartisan advocacy group. You can follow Gabe 840 00:40:03,640 --> 00:40:07,840 Speaker 1: and Fix the Court on Twitter at Gabe Underscore Wroth 841 00:40:08,560 --> 00:40:13,040 Speaker 1: and at Fix the Court. Here at Crash Course, we 842 00:40:13,160 --> 00:40:17,600 Speaker 1: believe that collisions can be messy, impressive, challenging, surprising, and 843 00:40:17,800 --> 00:40:21,640 Speaker 1: always instructive, as my son Cooper showed us when I 844 00:40:21,719 --> 00:40:25,720 Speaker 1: asked him to define financial conflicts, How would you explain 845 00:40:25,760 --> 00:40:26,520 Speaker 1: that in your own words? 846 00:40:27,840 --> 00:40:32,759 Speaker 2: When somebody owns a possession, but they have to make 847 00:40:32,760 --> 00:40:35,680 Speaker 2: a decision on something else without decisions affected by their 848 00:40:35,719 --> 00:40:38,360 Speaker 2: other possession, that's awesome. 849 00:40:39,600 --> 00:40:43,399 Speaker 1: I mean, I help you prepare, but that's really good. 850 00:40:43,560 --> 00:40:47,480 Speaker 1: Thank you, buddy, Love you, Love you. In today's Crash Course, 851 00:40:48,000 --> 00:40:50,320 Speaker 1: I learned the financial conflicts of interest on the Supreme 852 00:40:50,400 --> 00:40:53,800 Speaker 1: Court are glaring, that they should be addressed, but that 853 00:40:53,920 --> 00:40:56,799 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court doesn't seem to have much interest right 854 00:40:56,880 --> 00:41:00,480 Speaker 1: now in doing that. What did you learn? We'd love 855 00:41:00,560 --> 00:41:03,360 Speaker 1: to hear from you. You can quete at the Bloomberg Opinion, 856 00:41:03,440 --> 00:41:07,520 Speaker 1: handle at Opinion or me at Tim O'Brien using the 857 00:41:07,600 --> 00:41:11,560 Speaker 1: hashtag Bloomberg Crash Course. You can also subscribe to our 858 00:41:11,640 --> 00:41:14,360 Speaker 1: show wherever you're listening right now and leave us a 859 00:41:14,440 --> 00:41:18,280 Speaker 1: review that helps more people find the show. This episode 860 00:41:18,400 --> 00:41:23,000 Speaker 1: was produced by the indispensable Anamazarakis, moses On Dam and Me. 861 00:41:23,760 --> 00:41:27,399 Speaker 1: Our supervising producer is Magnus Hendrickson, and we have editing 862 00:41:27,480 --> 00:41:31,720 Speaker 1: help from Sage Bauman, Katie Boyce, Jeff Grocott, Mike Nitze 863 00:41:31,960 --> 00:41:35,920 Speaker 1: and Christine Vanden Bilard. Blake Maples does our sound engineering 864 00:41:36,440 --> 00:41:39,280 Speaker 1: and our original theme song was composed by Luis Gara. 865 00:41:40,200 --> 00:41:43,399 Speaker 1: I'm Tim O'Brien. We'll be back next week with another 866 00:41:43,480 --> 00:41:44,080 Speaker 1: crash course