his current term ends. ruling still to come from justices include a case of presidential immunity which focuses on alleged election interference efforts from former president trump while he was still in office. ♪ c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think is just a community center? it is way more than that comcast was born in 1000 committee centers to get wi-fi enabled so students from low-income families and get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast support c-span as public service along these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. democrats and house oversight and accountability committee held a discussion on supreme court ethics republican donors

paid for luxury trips for justices clarence thomas. book sale proceeds gifts including concert tickets for justice jackson. is also under scrutiny for controversial phone at two of his homes recent secret audio recording with the justice talk about religion and politics with liberal activists. this is two and a half hours. >> welcome everybody to democratic roundtable. high court low standards i supreme ethics crisis in america. we have terrificri panelists i bring into different panels with us this afternoon. want to start by thanking my distinguished vice ranking member of the oversight committee congresswoman cortez from new york for superb work on this panel.

i hope it is the beginning of her journey perhaps to law school. she could go to law school part time for this is what senator robert byrd did i happen to know it because he went to law school where i talked and he went on to become our constitutional champion in the senate. a position now held by our first uwitness from the u.s. senate. represents rhode island he is the chair of the senate budget committee. he has been working expertly to restore the integrity and reputation of the supreme court specifically come back the infiltration of dark money into the federal judiciary for many years. we are going to make our opening samson turn over to senator unless you need to get back to the senate for vote or something

right now too. >> because i am at your pleasure. >> okay. welcome and thank you for joining us. i will recognize myself and now for my opening statements. then all turn over to the vice ranking member. the crisis on the supreme court has multiple dimensions to it. is not just the ethical crisis which the whole country is talking about. it is the political crises as well. these are interlocked and mutually reinforcing. it all adds up to one profound crisis of constitutional legitimacy in the country. the seminole moment for understanding our situation took placee in 2005 -- four decision by the supreme court in bush versus gore to intervene in floors electoral process to stop the counting of ballots but handing george w. bushdi the national popular vote loser the presidency of the most salacious and dubious of grounds. never explained while blocking

the counting of more than 100,000 votes vindicated equal protection the constitutional preakness to completely abandon when it came to the rights of racial minority and women. her ownhe ruling when they said our consideration is limited to the presentim circumstances for the problem of evil production election processes. many complexities that reasoning offered in order to deny any presidential effect for bush versus gore is the precise opposite of the rule of law which depends on clarity, logic and precedent. but it didn't lead to the exquisite logical paradox if you follow bush versus gore you cannot treat the case as a precedent. you cannot trade as a precedent the passage saying you could not

cap be followed. in practice hundreds of federal state decisions have cited various aspects of this outrageous decision. for our purposes of understanding why the supreme courtof public reputation is in the gutter today the key point is george w. bush five -- four victory and the supreme court allowed him not only to name john roberts chief justice and replace the sandra day o'connor with samuel alito a hard-driving antiunion pro society lawyer and judge. everything would have been different completely today if al gore had not been denied the presidency by the supreme court. and we had in the place of justice alito and thomas today speaking hypothetically, the new

right wing five -- four majority included clarence thomas who astonishing replaces thurgood marshall of the appointee of george herbert walker bush proceeded to dramaticallyar eroe and set the stage for a resurgence of political white supremacy. there are many relevant cases in the genre but consider this a key one. 2013 in shelby county cut the heart out of the voting act of 1965 by essentially nullifying the central section five preclearancenc mechanism by finding the section for coverage formula was obsolete and dysfunctional because there is no more racism. likened it to someone deciding to throw away their umbrella and a rainstorm because they're not getting wet.

this decision within weeks and months lead to a dramatic rise in voter suppression and disenfranchisement tactics and schemes throughout the south. with the 15 states canceling online voter registration. early voting, mail and battle team, same date registration of thee reforms imposing serious nw blockades and obstacles to photo idtion including laws, regular massive purges in the voting rolls of voters who miss a single election. the closure of 868 polling places predominantly in the three years immediately after the decision gutting the voting rights act leading up to 2016 presidential election. although hilary clinton beat trump by more than two and half million votes nationally in popular votes he still eked out electoral college victory inn 2016. the popular vote loser and

winner then it came to name three right-wing supreme court justices of his own. he is gorgeous, brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. all three of them under questionable and dubious circumstances. neil courses got the seat present obama had nominated judge merrick garland to he was the chief judge of the d.c. court of appeals was arguably come indisputably in my mind one of the most qualified people ever to be nominated to the supreme court. this was the vacancy created by the death of justice scalia in februaryou of 2016. president obama nominated merrick garland to fill the vacancy on march 16, 2016. senator mitch mcconnell and his wisdom said there be no hearings or votes because nine months before the new presidential term was to close. the people should decide.

with only nine months to go up or of course the people had decided when president obama was elected two of this genuine bona fide constitutional four-year terms as president of the united states. mcconnell successfully blocked any hearings into his nomination in consideration of the nomination the seat remainedd vacant when president obama left office. and demonstrate out in care the right wing is about running roughshod over all principles and norms that might interfere of absolute determination to control the judiciary preclude the norms and principles they have made up themselves in the past. consider on september 18, 2020, less than two months before general election in early voting

had already started in several states. mcconnell left at the idea to be bound by the press and he created just for years before in the senate with the merrick garland nomination. the senate proceeded to ram through amy coney barrett's nomination like a thief in the night. i don't have time to get into brett kavanaugh's nomination for buteveryone here presumably understand what happened there in a new documentaries coming out on the brutal miscarriage of justice that took place. now, donald trump is bragging all over america that quote after 50 years of failure with nobody even coming close, i was able to kill roe versus wade but much of the shock ofv. everyone. he and mitch mcconnell packed and stack and gerrymandered the right-wing corporate court carefully designed to destroy roe versus wade and diffuse

religion corporate power, demolishing women's abortion and contraceptive rights, civil rights law, voting rights law, environmental law, worker's wors rights and consumer rights enshrining government power over people whenever they conflict corporate power over government whenever they conflict. the court has been behaving like a rabid partisan actor. a few weeks ago and alexander versus south carolina naacp eight of the six -- three ruling the right rig majority upheld congressional redistricting plan gerrymandered designed to thwart and dilute the voting rights of african versus after the right-wing majority have failed to show the majority white legislature was motivated by race when relocated thousands of black voters out of the first congressional district. dramatically changing the

balance of power in that district. justice alito help with the majority said the legislature is merely seeking to make the seat safer for republicans. which is a legitimate goal and does not violate equal protections. under this court it violates production went florida just tries to count ballots in florida. it is not violate equal production of african-american voters are drawn out of a congressional district town cree a safe white majority republican district. constitutional doctrine has been reduced in this d court to a series of blatant unjust thoroughlyus ideological decisis like these. upholding white political supremacy. racial inequality in it right wing control of our democratic institutions. all of the lectures about textualism and original is in today are nothing but a fraud on the public. and i want to get into that today. i want to talk about the

citizens united if you get a chance with senator whitehouse. i want to talk about the second amendment jurisprudence to put in some of the right-wing justices a five name to the court by bush and trump. the two presidents elected in this century to the presidency after losing the popular vote now acting entirely the judicial arm of the republican party. which represents of the small minority. justice alito brandished the flag symbols of insurrection, of disunion, and of christian white nationalism. it is no coincidence justice thomas takes millions of dollars from his right-wing corporate sugar daddy's. after all if you can decide presidential elections with fivh versus gore preview contacts, stat, gerrymandered not just congress but the supreme court

itself by denying the other party a bike and you have a friend of the court and ament flight to bali her paper and that members private school tuition. or buy you a recreational vehicle or send you on a lavish all expense paid vacation. why not? the highest court in the land today is the lowest ethical standards and yet who gave the justice rather than judge. and yet their lopsided ideological jurisprudence assaulting the rights of the people with their obscene ethical transgression they have completely the art judge alito and judge thomas to me at best. i'm looking forward to how we got into this predicament how we can get out.

i would happilye turn, i will recognize advice ranking member ms. cortez for anything she wishes to make ama quick thank u so much ranking member raskin. it is an honor to be here today for us to convene and discuss arguably one of the most critical issues before american democracy today. and with respect to law school, maybe if you arech my professor mr. ranking member of be happy to explore the] possibility. the back to the matter at hand. the supreme court is currently facing aba grave price it crisis of legitimacy it is a crisis of its own making. about 50 years ago a group of powerful, wealthy, conservative operatives looked around and realized they were losing. in 1964 in the united states on

thehi basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. in 1970 at a time when rivers were literally catching fire on pollution create the environmental protection agency. finally taking a measure of responsibility for the health and safety of working people and our climate. confronting polluters and corporations in the process. most alarmingly to these men, three years later in 1973 decided roe v wade giving women reproductive freedom, enshrining a right to privacy and marking a major advancement for bodily autonomy. the nation was changing. and it was changing to more fully realize our countries and promise. a democracy for the people, by the people with liberty and justice for all.

but, this new world a multiracial democracy with civil and economic rights enshrined in american society threatens the power of the very people who relied on this discrimination and subjugation of others. these wealthy, conservative men knew they could not win the argument on marriage. so, they hatched a plan to manufacture a structural assault on the american judicial system. in 1973, the same year as roe v wade the heritage foundation was born. and with it a decades long scheme too push back on these ideals and submits a hierarchy that these admen the elite 1% couldma remain on topic to rollback our rights. today, we are here to talk about how they did it and how we may win the struggle back for american democracy.

they did not have popular support. they did not have elected office. but what they did have was money and a lot of it. one of these men is leonard leo who joined the fight in 1990. leonard leo was a movement to the most prolific fundraisers. leona organized right-wing billionaires to shore up an infrastructure to influence the judicial nomination process and seats on the supreme court. wholesale fender group after group to head his and his billionaire friends reaction ideology onto the american public. right-wing billionaires include characters such as oil and gas magnet, charles coat, hedge fund manager and paraffinic collector harlan crow. the son of the biggest private landlord in the united states. these billionaires have never

been elected to public office. they are not our leaders and are on known vast majority of americans. and yet they work with shadowy extremist right wing figures a corruption ring of influence that reached the level of our country and our courts these billionaires hatched a plan to use massive of donations, and outright gifts and ethics violation to reshape the courts. and so far, to this day they have experienced success. let's be clear, justices clarence thomas and samuel alito are deeply subject to and are exacting the of these billionaires. they act like camper just look at clarence thomas whose corruption is almost comical. secret trips for international

vacations on super yachts. private jet jaunts to new haven for an afternoon. here in congress, we are forbiddenn from receiving gifts that exceed $50. but justice thomas has received more than $4 million in gifts. largely undisclosed since joining the court. and worse, it appears to be working. he's currently prime to overturn his 2005 doctrine so he can side with charles cook network and oil and gas interest the same charles coke who he secretly vacationed with at the retreat. take justice alito whose quote unquote friendship with billionaire paul singer along with more undisclosed gifts in private jet trips. followed by a shift in the court's decision to take up singer's own case. coincidentally after justice alito took it under part a fishing trip the supreme court

reversed their a position took p his case ultimately leading to a victory netting $2.4 billion. this was not a bad return on $8 million in political donations, a fishing trip and a couple bottles of a thousand dollar wine. and in corson 2022 these in billionaires and their hand-picked justices won their keystone victory against the american people and their progress as a society. the overturn roe v wade. so, why was it abortion? close the threat of women having freedom powerful enough to bring down our whole system of judicial ethics and cripple one of the three coequal branches of government? that is because the rich and powerful men are in an existential fight for status quo that enshrines their power and places them above the american public in the rules. the confluence of money and

conservatism is no coincidence. we are here today to connect the dots. the group behind the dobbs challenge was predictably funded by whoeo else but leonard leo. found a friendly court in front of right wing extremist. we have also seen as well as the conservative justice of clarence thomas and samuel alito. after all the justices clearly continue to agree to this a bargain by continuing to accept and engage in this ring of influence and financial persuasion. this brings us to the crux of the matter and why we are holding this hearing today. the supreme court, as it stands today is delegitimizing itself to its conduct. americans are losing fundamental rights in the process. healthcare, civil liberties, voting rights, the right to organize, clean air and water because captured and corrupted by money and extremism.

there is no one decision that determines a courts legitimacy. instead is the entire strategy that led us to this point. a group with their own ideological economic agenda working on of the three coequal branches of government. and let's be clear the supreme court is a coequal branch of government. they do not reign supreme over congress or the white house. this is a very court crisis of legitimacy as a court crisis within the court of her multiracial democracy and of who we are ascy a country. the responsibility for the erosion of the court not only lies in the court but allies in congress and is not just what they do but if we let it happen.

we cannot allow this to happen. we must treat this moment like the emergency it is used to fight back the future of our democracy depends on it but that i yieldfu back. >> thank you mu open out the first panel from rhode island. he has been blowing the whistle for several years now is focused all of his energy mapping out the dark networks finding corruption.. he is a book which i recommend to you on the scheme and you usedark money to capture the supreme court is a lot of legislation to curb dark money groups and tax breaks which would close the loopholes on

billionaires to avoid capitol gainsna taxes by donating moneyo dark money groups. to disclose who their donors are want to welcome you it's been a pleasure to work with you onse this and the whole question in complicity with the cover up of science relating to climate change. you are recognized for whatever remark she not sure if your committeela >> thank you so much congressman raskin it's a wonder to be with you and vice ranking on a particular shout out also has been outstanding to work with the cross several years and manyos issues.

the context for this conversation is rooted in the doctrines of regulatory capture and agency capture. these are doctrines about which there is much literature and also much sad experience. some decades ago the evil genius of the scheme was to take the tactics of regulatory capture, agency capture on the service of thatth we have seen billionaire london judicial selection process nominally run through the federalist society. look at thety records of the federalist society you can find recommendations or support for the so-called trump listed.

as cook up the back room by leonard leo h and his funding billionaires. the selection process puts them on the court than the billionaire gifts program kicks in to make sure the amenable justices are provided lifestyles of the rich and famous. up the same time the billionaires fund dark money factories and friendly think tanks and universities. like that major question doctrine recently applied are then brought to the court through t flotilla's of the billionaire funded. usually appearing in 10 -- 15 this is the big one is juiced

with dark money funding senate republicans who then obediently provide confirmation for the selected justices. when is he doing about that as a senate? i'll give you a very quick run through. first of all we have been trying to puten a heavy spotlight on te mischief to create pressure within the court and within the judiciary for it to manage its own reforms. we have seen some success from that. the supreme court has gone from don't bother us, go away to okay, here's a letter signed by all nine of us to discuss the position we take themha with tao our ethics. to okay, that did not work

here's an ethics code that we are adapting for ourselves with a fewfe modifications most importantly no investigation, ns enforcement. very big gaps in where we are the nine justices of the supreme court are the only officials in the entirety of the united states government as to home when an ethics challenge is raise there is no fact-finding done. the pressure campaign has work to the degree they are now nominally under an ethics code but when you keep the pressure on until they join the rest of the government and having a real ethics code with real fact finding some prospects for comparing the facts to the

rules. so that is legislation. we have it through the senate judiciary committee equating a vote on the senate floor i hope and expect we will have that vote. and term limits bill and want to again congratulate congressman johnson first term limits bill. we need to have perfect alignment between our bills but pointing in the same direction we are not going to pass them was the voters put democrats in charge. at that point we are close enough we can easily reconcile our bills provide real term limits the public really, likes fort supreme court justices. the third avenue is investigation. sit on thest judiciary getting n on the finance committee. both committees have been engaged in investigative activities. the judiciary committee gave chairman durbin subpoena authority and investigations are being pursued with the power of

the subpoena authority i would note thehe power has been somewt delimited by the loud declaratin by republican senators the subjects of the subpoena should not comply with them. they would never allow them to be enforced at the subjects refused to respond. so i hope and pray the time will come when the house is issuing subpoenas they are not subject to the senate filibuster. on the finance side the finance committee develop the information the quarter million dollar loan for justice thomas motorcoach is never repaid. some interest was paid then all payments stop. we continue to look into the final facts appears ever to be repaid. harlan crow appears to be

playing tax games with the yacht he took justice j thomas around and in some places he called it a pleasure it got in some places he called a charter yacht. we interviewed and he could never remember a charter and yet he took millions of dollars in tax deductions as if it were a charter yacht. it looks a lot like a billionaire and deducting the expense of operating his own toys. which is not the tax code permits. that remains under further investigation. the last piece the fourth avenue's work of the judicial conference the other distinguished senior judges, chief judges from circuit and district courts where the oversight body for the judicial branch within the judicial branch it is a body established by congress to enforce laws passed by congress.

the scalia trick was to arrange for the owner of a private resort to invite justice scalia on free vacation and then she failed to disclose the vacation on the theory that the free vacation gifted by the owner whom he may never have met was a personal invitation and as a personal invitation to we believe he took over 60, 60 of these free arranged vacations. the judicial conference took a look at that and blew it to smithereens but they knew perfectly well that would never

flight any circuit court or district court in the country. the second victory for transparency and integrity, if you go back to my description of how the court scheme worked it involves communicating to the justices what it was a billionaire interest once through the flotilla's. he would then not disclose who was really behind them. in a one occasion the brief was filed by an entity which is not even a real corporate entity. it was the fictitious name under virginia corporate law or a separate corporate entity under which the other corporate entity had registered to do business. they did not even disclosed to the court into the other parties who the real corporate entity was for home this was the fictitious name. just last week the judicial conference announced a new rule

demanding significantly its proposed rule demanding significantly better disclosure. the bad news is of aerobic court captured by special interest it is over and over again in appalling pattern. continuing to follow the direction of the billionaires in the front group to which they operate.ug the good news is the public is fed up. congress is fed upis mostly. the judicial conference is beginning to tighten up the rules on the supreme court justices. i will close by pointing out the case is often made congress is nothing to say about wriggling the ethical conduct of the supreme court justices. the supreme court justice own behavior belies that notion.

to clarence thomas gifts a free yacht both were referred where for what for review under the disclosure laws passed by congress. and through all of that process of a judge involved in that point out weaknesses in the process at thent time. what did not happen and that process was for justice thomas or any of the other supreme court justices say wait a minute, you have been no authority over me. you're not subject to the disclosure rules you cannot investigate me. there's even a remedy if it looks like the failure to disclose was willful to the attorneyey general for full investigation. that question, or the harlan crow to justice thomas second

round should be referred before the judicial conference rightfo now. >> thank you very much. we now going to enter into our q&a portion each member of the oversight committee will be given five minutes we are delighted to be joined by hank johnson are calling from georgia for the judiciary committee that shares thewh subcommittee on the courts there but will give you your five minutes as well. i'm going to kick it off with this. what is the relationship between the private corruption of the justices and the public corruption of justice. you can imagine if we had a squeaky clean justice alito and his squeaky clean justice thomas and so on they could still be all this damage on a legal doctrine but somehow it to me it seems like it is not just a coincidence and a happenstance that we get this steam roller against legislated output of the

civil rights movement and the women's movement and the labor movement at the same time we get an astounding private corruption of the justices. just wondering about your reflections on that? >> yearsrs ago when i began this effort i took a look at the fivh the conservative majority was unified but could not attract one of the other votes. relevant to republican special interest was involved. they won every single time. it is a pattern any good lawyer would taken to court to prove bias. the other so the pattern is very, very telling.

and, if you think back to her agency capture became court captured came from it began with folks like railroad barons putting their folks on the railroad commission so that the railroad rates the commission set be exactly at the railroad owners wanted. so the model fits, the pattern fits. but else fits where there is a discrepancy and where the interest with the billionaires behind the steam take you to check the conservative doctrine to the curb is probably no better example of t that and citizens united. which is about the least originalist historical based decision. >> is nothing to with the original. >> don't find original -ism you have to look at the dissent.

>> but now the right wing does seem to be very anxious about what's going on in america today. because the american people reject all of this. the o idea of it umpire calling balls and strikes as justice roberts put in his confirmation hearing before you, they know umpires do not put up flags of one of the teams and umpires do not have their wives lobbing to overturn the resultsrt of the lt game. they know umpires are not given million-dollar trips by the owner of the specific teams and so on. so they've got a real problem but what they are saying now we are violent and the separation ofon powers by compromising judicial independence. by not allowing them to be the judge in their own case and decide about their own ethical impartiality to make specific supreme court decisions. what about that question if you've thought a lot about that.

is this an assault on the separationsa of powers that the american people and their representatives in congress are trying to hold of the ethical crisis? >> it is no more than assault on the separation of powers ethics and disciplinary rules for executive branch officials would be. which we do all the time too. >> and we have done for decades. in fact we have seen senior executive branch officials get prosecuted as criminals for instance 18 usc 1001 fall statement violations for failures to disclose gifts and emoluments that are pretty minor when you consider these scale of the billionaire and gift program for the amenable justices. >> if we are not supposed to have overlapping checks and balances why do we have the power to impeach supreme court justices and convict them? why do you have the power to

control their budget? indeed why do we have the power to control the appellate calendar and their appellate jurisdiction? that argument seems overwrought to me. i went to ask you finally about judicial recusal. there's been a clamor and the country to try to get justice alito and thomas to recuse from generate six related cases before the supreme court right now. one relates to president trump extraordinary indication former presidential immunity from prosecution for crimes that may have been committed while an inoffice the other relates her interpretation of a particular statute. but i have been advancing the idea the department of justice could seek to try to get the supreme court to compel federal officials who are the supreme court justices to recuse

themselves in accordance with very clear supreme court case law. and doctrine for chief justice roberts seems to have come up very quickly and said no, that cannot happen. the court is not going to get involved. what is it we can do to try to vindicate very intuitive notion that no judge, no person should be a judge in his or her own case. >> the most obvious thing we could do would be to make sure that there is proper and honest fact-finding about what actually took place. the baseline for any process of law is proper neutral fact finding. everywhere you go, and government officials are subject to proper fact-finding when claims are brought against them. except for nine individuals who are the supreme court justices.

we have seen this play out in the recusal context because justice thomas has refused ever toto disclose what the facts are about what he knew about his wife's insurrection activities and when he knew a it. that's the facts that determine whether he should have recused himself and generate six related cases. similarly we have seen justice alito discussing multiple maga battle flags make factual assertions that are demonstrably not true as regards to the timing of the incident and so forth. so just getting the facts right will make a really important difference. the notion that nobody can go -- supreme court employee no supreme court staff attorney could go and s insights, we've d

this allegation about you. been to settle it. i need an hour of your time to answer some questions this is a formal statement for purposes of the way the federal law response to truth telling so could you tell me a little bit about this, that and the other and at the end when we are done would you mind signing the statement? that does not impede separation of power at all. they could set that up readily and at least you would have a true statement of what the facts aren't too compared to how everybodyy else and the judiciay behave. >> thank you, senator whitehouse for always flying the flag right side up and read the constitution and forward direction i'm going to yield now for five minutes. >> thank you so much ranking member thank you, senator whitehouse for joining us today. you mentioned in your opening remarks it's very crucial

mechanism. the judicial conference. the judicial conference is a body created by congress in 19202 well over 100 years ago to administer and enforce rules on the judicial branch. the judicial conference was created to address on ethical ul situations, almost exactly the kind seen and clarence thomas' case and samuel alito's case. andd it is meant to sort through as you mentioned and to make about when these situations arise. but there is a problem here we are running up against when it comes to the supreme court. i believe it is the court has to allowha investigation and offer this information comply with investigations by the judicial conference. and i think that is where we get to the crux of one of the crises

unfolding which is thehe role of chief justice roberts and how he presides over the court the decisions he ishe making with ts misconduct going on. can you tell us about how the supreme court specifically the chief justice have addressed these scandals and responded to your oversight attempts? has the court indicated a path forward in terms of how they seem to intend to engage in oversight investigation? >> a cheap justice is the chair of the judicial conference pretty silly member of the court who participates in it. and in that role he has allowed the judicial conference to kill off the skull leah trick. and he has allowed the judicial conference to investigate justice thomas dealings with

harlan crow, an ongoing investigation right now. he has allowed it to begin the process of cleaning up the secret fake front and the flotilla was. so obviously he could do more. i suspect he could do a good deal more as chief justice. it strikes me that if this is a court that can take away women's rights to their bodily autonomy by a simple majority affecting 160 million people in this country, rough numbers. they ought to buy simple majority be able to apply to themselves the same kind of ethics procedures that every other federal judge has to follow. >> let them vote no. >> could you speak a little bit as a well as it's on the direct

engagement between the court and congress directly? as you mentioned their oversight investigations happening in the senate. from the senate itself. and as you mentioned in your opening remarks you may have some republican colleagues that are loudlyha claiming the supree court should not comply should a subpoena be issued by congress into the misconduct of the court. i think it is very important for us to understand the crisis that could potentially present. has three coequal branches of congress that the supreme courtu refuses or a wood refused to comply with a potential subpoena issued by congress, what would be the implications of such a radical act? and, what could that unleash on

our democracy? quickly may have to find out. for now, what we know is that the chief justice has declined repeated invitations both to come to a senate judiciary hearing and even to meet with the centers on the judiciary committee to discuss the problems over at the court. in the context of the request to him to discuss the most recent incident with what i call the maga battle flags, justice alito intervened without an invitation from congress sent chairman durbin and i a letter with his version off events. so, they have not been complete incommunicado the weight justice thomas hashe been. i would note one enters thing about justice thomas engagement with us.

he is a generally, completely mute when it comes to questions about ethics and facts. but when the judicial conference exploded the skull leah trick that is that one time when he say.omething to when he said was i will comply with this new rule. in every bone in washington looked at i will comply and got completely transfixed by that. but as lawyers in the room would know the operative language in that sentence is this a new rule. the explosion of the steve strict was a clarification which means a retroactive. which means he and justice alito would have to go back and clean up a lot of ms. filings. so the only time he has spoken to this issue said this new

rule, he was closing a door for himself and contrasted the language actually use in a letter to me by the judicial conference the judicial conference is now reviewing weather when they said clarification they meant clarification. if they make that decision we will learn a lot more about the billing or gifted program. >> very briefly, so much of the structure of our democracy and governance relies on checks and balances a system of checks and balances between these coequal branches of government. much of that authority of thech court when the court overrules the executive branch or congress the expectation is in those branches would comply with the ruling of the court. this comes to court basis of enforcement i suppose the

question i would pose is, if the court does not comply with sscongress, what mechanism and authority to they wish to assert or used to have congress comply with them? >> there is a biting tension congressman raskin probably knows better than anyone in separation of powers and doctrines between the separation of the branches in the co- equality of the branches as a checks and balances on one another. that is very much the center of the conversation we are happening with the court right now. and with some of our republican colleagues is the only separation of the powers but do not see the koa quality in the checks and balances. >> thank you very much. i am going to move quickly now because senator whitehouse is going to have to leave i think

at 515. and so ms. norton i will come to you and hopefully we will get in the others we will pick up with you guys for the next panel. ms. thornton your recognize your fiveve minutes. about money. i wouldab like you to discuss wt it is, who controls it, what is the purpose of the so-called dark money? >> and dark money is the rot in our democracy right now. it is controlled by definition by billionaires and wealthy special interest who have the ability to spend millions and millions of dollars in politics. the motive to spend millions and millions of dollars in politics and the desire to obscure it

from the public who they are when they spend it. so they cannot be held accountable for their political intervention into our democracy. we have the ability to cure it if you read the citizens united decision closely sense for the e proposition dark money is corrupting which is why you went to the elaborate pretense how this money would be transparent. so we can fix the disclose act would fix it that was a part of hr at one in the last congress. and i hope the voters vote for reform, and the coming election we are actually able to pass that bill and cleared the dark money out of our politics. i watch a bipartisan climate issues in the senate dropdead january 2010 the robust

conversation the flagon carrier john mccain for the republican party in the presidential race had a perfectlypa good climate platform. two like a heart attack it just flatlined after generate 2010 and no republican in the senate has joint a series bipartisan climate bill since. so, has a real effective than the fossil fuel industry spends on the dark money. they're very happy at the situation have created and postponing climate regulation for over ad decade. >> what is this dark money spent on? and how does dark money -- macau is dark money utilized helps weight the outcome of supreme court decisions? >> the most immediate and direct

dark money under the purest definition of the term is money that is spent in politics by hidden special interests. special interest sends $20 million to a front group, the front group then puts it into a super pack. the super pacs spends it in support or against a candidate only reports the front group. obviously the biggest special interest will communicate to the candidate they are supporting. we just spent $20 million for you a s price on the public that is left in the dark. but it also turns up in the supreme court through these front groups that have low flotilla's who by virtue of not disclosing to the court or to the other parties can obscure the fact that they are really like piano keys on the same piano >> the same po is so dark money

course, that are preventing an argument and her bring to the, that if there is one consistency, with the right wing justices, is the alignment with the direction provided by the money from the gripsme in the. >> will i would like to ask you how dark money is utilized to help sway the outcome of the supremee court decisions for example in terms of the nomination and confirmation of the judges during the republican demonstration. >> i would say, that the one use the phrase that this is according to dark money belt. and he built it through contributions, to the republican party and building through front groups, that were stood up that do not reveal the real funding yes. but then they go out in lobby

for issues in many cases, the litigate cases. as a real party of interest in plaintiff of convenience to be the plaintiffs but lawyers know the usually the client goes to find a lawyer when he of cases which the lawyer is going to find a climate in order to bring a case, that is a little bit of red flag and so it comes through, throughout this whole scheme effort. [inaudible conversations]. >> thank you for having this hearing because the market people deserve answers and

accountability and not only do we see a crisis for the supreme court really it is about a democracy and separation of powers and branches of government and democracy and so i want be clear from the top of this is one of if not the most political activist course we never seen an american history and as we discussed here today by several just recommending and involved informing the very fabric of the american rights as every decision and abortion clean air act and voting rights and climate change send me executive authorities presidents that stood knowing for decades generations back into the 19th century, but is not just the force was often seen in congress because the dark money

interested in talkinge about. [inaudible conversations]. and before us, the every single day going to see had in effect we've had this before this very committee that offended by that donors that we are talking about today their narratives in the legislative sense very same institutional it ideas that america's have help for so long dear for so long we seen it time and time again but to thank you so important for us to understandin this is not a coincidence, this is been built over decades by were going to station's they founded in the got brothers in the hiring process in the energy and they founded by donald trump and supreme court justices they

advocated committed be appointed to and in front of the campaign, to make sure that they got to the senate confirmation process and also funded the public campaign to ensure that they got there. well meanwhile,, the step and families they have been multibillion-dollar occasions unknown yachts and private planes and funded by the very same billionaires while they have actual business in front of these courts, through these dark money organizations but he wanted you say the you know, you do not have to take our word for it because o a picture says a thousand words and when this case, 4 million-dollar dark money contribution to your supreme court justices and we have justice thomas and crow another who incidentally is representing when is in favor committee, just a few weeks ago and leonard leo and others on vacations it together and we

have justice thomas and jenny thomas with crow in indonesia and another cute picture ofdo tm in indonesia, here is thomas valley and as we all know, natalie is she a mega supporter of trump and funded by the same organization in the justicee project, that house visits before the course that her husband sits on, she'll plan the january 6 insurrection grade and here we have justice on a fishing guided trip and another make it on her here they are again taking out good for us hereau in 2008 and of course ase all have seen in the last several weeks, the flanks is been flying outside of the justice beach house right after january 6 and his own personal house aligned with of course, the january 6 and here's the

entire cast of characters brought to you and funded by dark money in the candidates right here with donald trump and jenny thomas and their appointees. so i think that it is fair to say, that we only have as i said, judicial crisis, but an actual prices in the very institutions that underpin our democracyy and that is really what we are talking about here and that isat why i'm cosponsord of you bill senator which mr. johnson is waiting on here in the house that's why i also cosponsored introduce ago with representative asking to bring in inspector general's to the supreme court but i think when the american people really want to know i can assess every single day when i am back home is that it was a real talk and how will we get this done and given the politically realities of where we are right now and

given where this body is at, the court is out, how will we get to get me entrance meaningful judicial reforms to not please answer the next one. >> in the dark days of the early world war ii years before america came in full force. winston churchill set to america, give us the fools and we will finish the job. give us the tools i thank you so what we need to tell the american voter coming give this trustte and tools we will finish the job. >> and could not have said it better thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much and out the distinguished gentility from texas recognize for five minutes. >> and senator come up i'm going

to be cognizant of your time because i am so thankful not only for your expertise, i really want to tap into that for those watching and they don't realize the amazing attorney that you are. that allows you to be well-informed as you are crafting legislation i want to make sure that we see and get you out of your someone a time so i will not be reading from my remarks and said i just want to talk about a couple of things that think that we have heard over and over and over especially this term is his idea to tear justicece system. we have heard that term used in you know how many times and so i just want to walk you through a couple of things and tell me, if there are really things to be some differences to specific courts. so when we look at our lower federal courts talking about the level talking about the trial

level, and would you agree with me that there is some form of ethics that is in place for our lowerou courts for some help is absented from our high court. >> that is correct. >> when we look at things such as his idea what or when a recusal should be in place, if i walk into the trial court right now and i feel as if a recusal today class and took place in fact we have a similar scenario taking place in georgia state court radio. we were there are those that believeli recusal should take place while the trial court has ruled, they have the option of going to appellate court and in the case what is been laid out by so many michael asked, as a relates to potential conflicts because of your wife is aupotentially one of the

perpetrators of january 6th 1 of the planners that january 6 and also obviously we dealt with the upside down flag that are solidarity with those january 6 defendants and what type of recourse we have when there's a conflict that exists when c i say conflict i just wat to be very real about this other people there's never been anywhere near place where they say even by demand can see there's an obvious conflict what is the recourse on the supreme court and is there every course of the supreme court when the justice decide not going to recuse themselves from what seems to be a very obvious conflict. >> will at the moment there is nnot. >> so, i agree that there may be some sort of a two-tiered justice system and playing out in our country but it seems like

the two-tiered justice systems is the benefit of the highest court in the land from what i can ascertain and my colleague has already laid out malanie stansbury the people want to know what we are going to do it as one of the cochairs for the court reform,'s three specific bills that were pushing forward with that we really want to hopefully see brought to fruition and obviously not doing this in a a full committee hearg because the people that are running the madhouse right now not here for it but we are because we believe in law and order and overall the rule of lawf and so we talk about thins such as extending the course, is there a history in this country ouexpanding the supreme court. >> there is this been done by congress. >> it is been done by congress

and a seven different times in the last time wasn't 1869, now i know that this is not inecessarily your area that expertise would you agree with me, that this country is wrong just a little bit since 1859 smacked the population has considerably increased yes and we can agree on that. >> will may make sense to do that in addition to that, you know somebody is practice in state court in federal court, ,term limits exist in some form in a number of states court systems but we don't have it on the federal level. can you explain to us how potentiallyy imposing term limis on the supreme court could allow for hopefully some of the harms that we see coming through the courts at some of the terrible influences hopefully finally make his way out of the courts. >> for the court, term limits,

among other things, allow for a regular schedule of vacancies. so that the court is not driven by the random fact of who the president is at a time when a vacancy emerges and would take away or maybe not entirely take away but make far less credible the first at was done to stop merrick garland and install justice warships in his place and so it would make it far more regular and ordinary and it would make it more difficult for partisan justices to time their departures ♪

♪ to make sure thatrt their pary gets to fill the vacancy and the completely apolitical but they deem to try to clear out in the presidency of the parties so. >> thank you so much thank you mr. crockett backed out to distinguish colleague mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you mr. ranking member and we do applaud you the members of the members of the oversight committee for convening us today for this briefing i want to think our esteemed guess the honorable senator of the white house and the american people owe you a debt of gratitude before court reform became so popular, you were in the trenches and doing

the groundwork bring it to this point where you know, the data is there and the actions and activities have been exposed. the legislation to address those concerns is in the pipeline. i just i notice from the news report n that ethics legislation will be brought to the floor of the house of the senate sometime this week. will that be the third after will that be some other ethics legislation. >> we are having a series of speeches on the senate floor this week. but i'm not aware of the vote has been scheduled. >> okay well maybe that read the report. >> and he a floor action. >> okay. >> a floor vote. >> all right well nonetheless, i am happy to be introducing in the house the cert act yet of

course the companion legislation in the senate which you are wishing. and also term limits legislation which is very important which would address the situation with the right house taken hold. right tends to take hold in places where there's lifetime tenure with no accountability structures in place. enlighten us senator of the enforcement mechanisms that is set forward in the cert act now we could help with situations like scalia flying of the flakes is exposed. >> the personal bulimics it was say what a pleasure it is been working with you on these issues. we have worked very very well together very closely together and very much appreciate your advice and advocacy and friendship through all of our common work.

the most important thing is that it directs the court, to establish a process for its own ethics review and if it refuses to, then we provide one. it remains to be clear, and ethics enforcement program executed within the judicial branch. you don't have to come over to congress this is not the kind of intrusion into the tipip separations of powers but at the moment, the situation is that if youth have an ethics complaint about a member of the supreme court, there's not even an inbox to take your complaint. there's no cloak on the other side of the inbox to store sort of legitimate complaints from then nutty sauce.

the legitimate complaints have no place to go within the court to be evaluated and there is no process for any justice to have to answer any question ever about with the actual facts are and there is no report december provided about with the actual facts are and there no opportunity for any f neutral by to the judicial conference itself judicial to take what the report declared income. the rules the force that, throughout the federal judiciary and say that this is not measure up. all that can be built within the judicial branch and all of it would avoid the accountability chasm of the heart of the supreme court's ethics problems. >> and without congress taking

action, is your opinion, that the chief justice, there is nothing it would prevent the chief justice from ordering an investigation of a complaint, that may come to be filed against the justice such as establishing tribunal within the judicial conference, to investigate and make recommendations and is there anything. this. >> i would think that the chief justice would have pretty broad administrative authority to do that he may choose to set up a process separately and execute the process and he may wish to seek a majority vote in support of the court in doing so. there's a lot of flexibility there and i don't want to commenting too much depth about that but he is the administrative chief of the

supreme court and he is the chair of the judicial conference in between us to offices he holds broads, judicial authority and the responsibility to see to it that the judicial branch of government operates ethically and properly with accountability and with transparency. he has those responsibilities and he has the tools to achieve that i believe. >> oothank you and i go back. >> doesn't think you for joining us senator white has one thank you for working so hard to bring a little law to the supreme court and to their proceedings and thank you for being an unflagging champion for the constitutionon and rule of law. >> i am grateful for the attention thatat you all have provided to this issue i look forward to working with you and the mess and perhaps even more happily the congress add, to put this problem behind us to have very much so so there's of avoidable bring about as i can

handle only pickup of questionable some of the people whoit work not given a chance yt and that includes mr. product and mr. goldman and so please welcome to us the executive director of accountability and he previously was chief counsel the center on the judiciary committee and expert of the money in the system and a policy expert of judicial ethics and kate shaw is a professor of law university of pennsylvania she focuses on bob democracy supreme court reproductive rights and justice and she worked in the obama white house counsel's office and currently cohost an supreme court this podcast called strict scrutiny. ed another is the directors legal advocacy earth justice focuses on anticipatingg enlightening friends judicial often includingng federal power judicial review of agency action

as you were to the u.s. department of justice office of legal counsel i'm open to all of you and each of you will be recognized for five minutes mr. erickson will begin with you. >> ranking member raskin vice ranking alexandria ocasio-cortez and members of the committee think you for this imported round table. in the far right capture the supreme court closing the threat to our democracy and shared asperity.ou an important that you are giving it the attention it deserves. my name is alex and i am the cofounder and executive director of court accountability. if any court accountability last year from the cellular about the right wing court project was to stop judicial paragraphs by exposing and confronting corruption and excited abuses of power this roundtable is an important step in that direction. this report is writing me did not come about organically. the justices to going women's

reproductive freedom to make it harder starkly disenfranchised communities to vote and overturned the basic environmental protections came to power through 50 or special interest campaigns by self-interested billionaires and installed through unprecedented constitutional breakinghr this campaign was designed to do social and economic progress of the 20th century. journey legal theories into constitutional laws divine social. and the method racial integration i think board of education and the project facing significant investment illegal and other drivers of the influencean pretty nameless was solidly democratic most jurisprudence most notably regionalism dominant form of legal interpretation and these investments also build a pipeline ideological movement lawyers loyal to the benefactors your to be installed as life tenured federals judges.

to show up and reward that loyalty providing happily dollars voyages and free trips just given no rain or for the justices. this roundtable comes at a critical moment, just as thomas financial corruption, just as elitist ethical violations and brazen flag waving displays of partisanship and complicity of chief justice roberts and coming to reign in these mega justices have given the market people well-founded doubt about the course impartiality and objectivity. let me be very clear. it is heartbreaking the american people are so quickly losing confidence in their supreme court. t but there right in doing so. these far right justices have delivered to victoryr after victory to dark money interest atto the expense of everyday people. some of these like dogs which

overturned row unleashed assaults on women's reproductive rights ruin which limited the ability of the season local governments to protect the people from been violence are all too obvious. but ops is just the beginning. we can expect further judicial attacks on reproductive freedoms based on radical and theocratic theories like fetal personhood and then abortion nationwide avoid declaring that cost additional 14th amendment. this would threaten not only abortion, but ivf and foreclose any legislative efforts, and reproductive freedoms protection. and some of the course of the rewards first right wing backers are more subtle but no left until it's far from the course decision west virginia and virginia intervention to deploy the novel question of doctrine of this fairly detailed the government's ability to make people pollution arms and on issues of voting rights, darwinian gerrymandering in the

writing super majority reliably uses his power to deliver victories to its allies. although bush likely 51 from political ruins of the court's current treatments of the insurrection case almost rises to that level. by agreeing to consider isha immunity claim billing is — the court is already in short the trumps mysterious pedophile what a until after the election. in doing so these mega justices have arguably given trump is his campaign contribution to date. in past is prologue it should not hold her breasts to disclose theog gift. in one justice clarence thomas has refused to recuse himself from the trumpfu case even thouh his wife jenny thomas was an active participant in trump scheme to steal the election. recently the other just assembling a leader was.not one bit to make likes associated with the deadly insurrection and he also hasss refused to disqualify him some defined dictates of federal law.

in doing so, is untenable justices have made a mockery of justice, and lasting damage to the legitimacy of our supreme court. as americans look for answers, this question becomes what congress people scratch can do about all of this and the answer is a lot and enforceable ethics codes and is a great start and i commend center white house members of this committee for passing legislation making clear the congress has aan role, regulatedhe justices behavior tm limits, what is a go a long way to restore the course. congress should also use constitutional powers to stripper limit the federal court jurisdiction to overturn cpro-democracy legislation with the freedom to outvote acted any goes like the codification of row and even a trump judge recently affirmed that there is no real question jurisdiction stripping the constitutional in recent parts and precedents for it. >> can you just wrap up because were going to have to go out.

>> simple powerful tool to be sparingly preserve democracy to must exercise its inherent oversight authority to self-serving fabrications they can't respect the power of overseeing the court. although i'm clear the difficult battle we face and claiming democracy from this authoritarian court i'm hopeful inspired that you were taking the initial steps needed to start the process and i think you for your testimony professor shaw you are up for five minutes. >> when he vice ranking member cortes members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today and my name is kishore number professor a lot the university of his about is made and i want to focus on something on the relationship right now report democracy. my comments to the courts frequent substitute division x on activities in the course sponsors to inquiries about those activities and the court is connecting yourself in ways that are fundamentally inconsistent with basic separation of powers principle

better or feature of our democracy. it is asserting an anonymous power is exercising the powerern ways that are hostile to democracyth and refusing any and all accountability. this is critically right now but it is every as a country waits with baited breath to learn whether and how the court will bid american law. the questions include whether o and how the y court will further erode capacitive agencies to regulate ways to protect your health and safety and well-being and whether the court will permit government to limited the possession of the most lethal forms of firearms the ability of dangerous people including abusers and whether the court will allow the laws by congress in five of the president coming to be is to hold accountable individuals charged with the attacks on the capitol. including former president. the court is asserting that it is essentially long will decide all of this for all of us and although we do not yet know how it will rule, and reason terms

the court is proceeded without a shred of humility the day of a critically elected actors and governments to work the court is often do and it is done all this while signaling for the court is not as so checks is a separation of powers dynamic and static including i 2 degrees la allowig one set of institutional actors to dramatically expand their authority and resist accountability without many full challenge oratat pushback, risk permanent damage were constitutional structure say a few words about the courts recent cases, many with the court is not only acted in ways that are in kisses with a rope court in a democracy, is undermined orde threatened basic democracy in the first panel really covered in regular rest can you talk about shelby and bush versus gore so i won't rehearse all that but i think maybe to some all that up with what was once understood, is largely or primarily functioning to facilitate the democracy, it's clear that this is the

courtt no longer uses that as hs primary are indeed a role that the court serves at all. it may be less obvious that the equally important, is the antidemocratic character of the course decision and ops in a really roe v. wade, dobbs perversely claimed to rest upon or indicate principles of democracy but a return to the question of abortion to the democratic process at precisely the moment when the board itself had been injured this is unlikely to yield widely desired outcomes in addition the history and tradition the court used in dobbs is a wobbly in the prophetic one and finding that recognition of constitutional rights today to a past in which very few americans were meaningful participants in the production law legal meaning. this deeply getting democraticct strain is also unswayed in thein course mistreated — and in this case denies a highly decision about the separation of powers and democracy they fundamentally

undermine those values and this is been particular start in the course major questions cases in which the court has deployed this articulated doctrine to disable agencies from acting under brought authority from congress and astern the court is considering among things with the overall the 20 -year-old doctrine whether to declare unconstitutional agency of education don't only seven of the court is going to do the cases but it d continues on trajectory, i'm fairly confident it is going to curtail agency power is would be when it doesn't be profoundly undemocratic at least two ways, first from each ofmo the agency power that i just mentioned about change challenges to agencych action as in about a choice made by cobras and administrations of both parties and the second in some ways more fundamentally, these challenges are directed attack on the valleys of the quality and the cases that inal recent terms to reduce take vastly have spent most focus on agencies at the center of the project of

inclusive and multiracial democracy and finance regulations labor production consumerre protection reproducte rights and environmental protections and so that's a court cases briefly want to say couple words about accountability and procedure the separationa of powers no single individual or institution and check power of middle and lots of examples from the course that it no longer believes that principle ofip the believes and enforces the separation of powers but is subject to it is like wall street generally do not have the power to regulate the board and consistent with that constitution is not just amp at the chief justice who had used it less i'm additional tone was similar substance in his unwillingness to even meet with senators durbin and white house in their efforts to simply address the questions that the court and it's imperative now because my list for the congress community to the court series about issues of oversight and count of the chief justice have

us work even in that small exchange because allowing it to stay out of the chief justice avalos were to my mind is a ratifying the notion that congress yield the court is not obligated to put a spin the project of congressional oversight are lots ofct ways the committee can follow for meeting ofys the chief justice staff and writing that i thank you so critical that the chief justice not be allowed to sibling of the refusal said and in the interest of time a wrap up here. >> thank you for your excellent remarks andan now recognize the next person for five minutes. >> thank you and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak today about some of trying to change is of the supreme court is making i want to spend my time to discuss how the effort to reshape the t federal courts during this trump administration a very fruited judicial decisions right now what this means the real people to depend on the kinds of protections that the laws that i work on clean air act and safe

drinking water act as statutes like that provides to all of us every day. t so to start, to the credit against the conservative political experts have the power to reshape the federal judiciary and the power to do so for quite honest about what they were trying to do pretty 2018, that the white house counsel spoke with a political activist conferencing find the trump administration's approach was part of it coherent plan was judicial selection in the regulatory effort of the administration were reallyhe the flipside of the same coin and 2022, senator mcconnell explained the trump administration is a federal society is team of potential judges who work of a like mind. an outcome of the people were in a positionf to take advantage f the reshape courts have alsohe tabeen quite clear about how bod they are now to use the course to advance their agenda and as

an example last november, senior attorney and the foundation the groupeg the describes the core areas ofit work in the restrictg the authority of federal administrative agencies, and eminent money will never be a problem so for them, it is more efficient, do achieve the goals by litigating all of the way to the supreme court, that's more efficient loving with the administering of agencies awaiting political campaigns given the set up well-funded demotivated litigation groups, soo surprise of the federal courts including the u.s. of report, are now issuing decisions that invest multiple linest of attacks of the way te government is structured now and how it operates. this set up his web produce decisions like west virginia versus with a change the rules of the game, when it comes to interpreting statutes like the clean air act because it was in pursuit of what justice kagan

describes a broad goal off preventing agencies from doing important work even though that is what congress directed in the set up is how we got the like epa where i again come the provided evidence, that the supreme court has had again using justice kagan's description of pointed itself as a national decision-maker on environmental policyy and then that case on the clean water act. so does this all mean for us, the kindest environmental laws that i work with her bedrock and 40 statutes designed to allow us to salt pressing problems and can be trusted drinking water won't cause cancer can we sit her kids to watch as he walked to school no the theater they breathe is that we give them asthma and on and on in congress new is doing these important laws i was recognize that these serious problems and set clear goals for countries and then interestedro federal agencs

to carry out those commands and it did so because it understood that this agencies have the necessary scientific economic and technological resources to make sure the congress and commanded to use these laws are carried out and how was also gave us the public without the vested interest in making sure that their water is thinkable in our air is clean the ability to influence the process before federal agency and those things are perfect and the system is led that we can and we should product. but in a world where the federal judiciary makes these decisions withoutma the giving respect to federal agencies in the statue the congress wrote and perhaps even looking at them with a skeptical life owing into these cases the world will look very different. this world is a threat to all of the progress that we've made in our ability to do the work this still needs to be done, to meet the goals and the agenda that these laws have set and they

fought so hardso to protect us f the pollution that but those there and thank you. >> okay thank you for your excellent his money were not going to resume questioning and i will start off with mr. pot and you will be recognized for five minutes then we will go through the members who have not questioned yet and will stay for a fewwi minutes. >> thank you chair asking advice chair alexandria ocasio-cortezou were convening us and mr. hanson, as you and many have testified, justice thomas excepted numerous gifts for marlon crow including three trips, yachts, private jets, privateet school, and you know thank you so aim very complex bt is actually pretty simple and they have a real estate firm which has a case and for the justicee thomas while he is giving them these gifts and i don't think he has to go to law school to know that this is a

conflict off interest. am i missing something. >> no you don't run it all in the exact federal statute right here is tasted any justice, shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which impartiality a reasonably big question of course this is a statute is implicated by samuel alito flag waving situation is certainly by clarence thomas to receive them in years and years worth of millions of dollars in gifts from that real estate man was direct and indirect interests before the court and think that's more than reasonable to conclude that the impartiality might be questioned reasonable lead by this decade-long relationship by the happy acceptance of all of this you know free luxury travel. >> and then justice as stop the feels like flying in front of his house and i respect his first amendment rights he said he cannot tell his step what to do and i can't tell my spouse what to do but that is not the issue right and the issue is to

the event flute playing in front of his house in any presiding over january 6 case and again does not seem like you have to be law school to know that you can never stop the flag but you can't then do to get a case this about whether the election was stolen in my missing something there soon a a congressman i thk you're missing something i think he has been trying to deflect the blame to his wife martha and justice is try to deflect blame an association to them mega insurrection was wife but i think very clearly, reasonable observer looking at the facts and dew point, congressman, he does not contest of the flight was flying outside of its on beaches not contest the political significance of the flag and he said it was his wife's decision to fly it and she saw it will i'm not but this on the question it's a statute in this conclusion that no reasonable observer would be able to question is impartiality

is flatly falsely but i just want to say that alternative or do professor shaw, the supreme court justice take three and 44 gifts valued over $3m dollars in congress is pretty broken but were limited it to a gift of $250 to put it in context and the total is unaccountability for the supreme court. events are me none of this but you know average age they typically leave the supreme court and it is 78 years of age unit never of years they typically serve on the court, 20 years 28 years and longer than any point in american history and a question for you is would you say that a court that has an average age of 63 and the average age leaving 78, the justices serving for two or three decadess may explain why they're so blatantly out of touch with the most basic facts of modern life including abortion rights as a bbq rights had contraception. >> will look i think they're

having younger justices on the court would be the development i thank you so a combination is always about possibly a powerful supreme' court and by tenure and the refusal of any mechanisms of accountability talk to brother we are encouraged to lee experiencing so i think that is an aspect so broken about the spring court now. >> and are there any requirements and constitutional passivity be appointed to the supreme courtns for life i know you have to be a judge for life but is there any requirements yet to be there for life. >> will good behaviorsrs understood to all federal judges and tenures that we translated that the price is not a constitution but that's how we've always understood the constitution. >> but it could be someone has term limits and the ghost was circuit court of some other job right in the sea judge for life long as you runs for enforcement so argument that ordinary understanding a requirement of tenure could be you know implemented in a different way the life of the reporting could be implemented away but constitutional amendment whereby

justices serve as report remain a judge or quote that requiring amendment to the constitution of think that's on the merits. >> i do you thank you so reasonable that have term limits for the supreme court justices given the penchant for fancy gifts that in more than eight years they stayed given outgi ot of touch theyh are with basic norms of modern america. >> will and a comparative context almost everything is from a mr. age limits for their supreme court justices are good at pragmatic reasons for doing this like a there's strong and arguments that you can do it without requiring a constitutional amendment under article fiveg is virtual virtually impossible today. >> bring you and thank yous congressman for your excellent questions and one what we are live entered limited to $50 not $250. [laughter] [laughter] >> bullheaded take it. >> well is a good opportunity. >> well it is different. >> will know we know the

gentleman from california takes no gifts atshni all. and congresswoman and we are actually introducingng legislatn to do the piece of the problem we are discussing today which is applied to 60-dollar gift fan which works fine in congress, to the supreme court itself and were going to be unveiling that this week knowar i recognize how great call i get from florida maxwell cross for his five is a questioning. >> thank you, and for bringing this together predict the integrity of her judicial system is something that i get that focus on intently in the state of florida especially recently. when sanad antonio was put out f office just recently the state supreme court we just completely compromise full dissent his lapdog completely while they threw it out and will see what happens in november every is sitting here in the will of the voters the supreme court issued

a landmark ruling in the roy decision which rages and raiseso major can is dark many from donors and the decision which struck down new york's country old law requiring individuals demonstrate a special need to carryg concealed weapon services a major shift in the second amendment in the way we interpret it and this does champion by the gun lobby big gun bobby players like the nra is of the biggest contributors to that nra billionaires like charles coke ad leonard leo leo spent at least $950,000 to overturn affirmative action by paying for plaintiffs and also groupsts who wrote supporting frates darkk many groups backed by leonard leo supports tens of millions of dollars in the fund's dedicated to dismantling voting rights and promoting gerrymandering in the wake ofan shelby county versus over which god of the voting rights act recent adoption of a formal ethics code by the supreme court lacks the robust enforcement

mechanisms that we needd the revelation surrounding justice thomas and undisclosed vacations funded by billionaire in i like there's a need for more transparency and accountability so there's been a lot of reporting on the influence of dark money as relates to the court and specifically justice thomas and it samuel alito but for those not familiar can you the nrathe influence of had onny networks have justice kavanaugh confirmation. >> when going to be able to save chapter and verse were there have been recent confirmations you know a significant increase in money spent outside groups the nra, and many others and i think that in some ways this where the transformation of the second amendment goes back much further than the confirmations a president appoints appointees and begins in 2008 district of columbia the 2022 decision you mentioned and in both of those instances, the very broad-based

multiplatform effort that involved a lot of expenditures of funds but also the development of scholarships, and sort of a movement they can change americans understanding of second amendment but a statement of myth as well regulated militia of the necessary security of a free save you forget to park and keeping very arms and for all of her history until 2008, that was understood scary right consistent with our exercise in conjunction with militia services of the court fundamentally hello decision changed out for the nra i think a lot of different preference involving money but also persuasion source fundamentally changing the meaning of the supervision of the constitution and the court two supercharge that second amendment so to my mind money is some but not the entirety of the story of transformation of the second amendment many of the constitution last couple of decades. >> in the second amendment intimidation how dotu you expect this to impact state and local

relations like florida. >> well the hands of government they were talking with the federal government and the states or local government and exit very difficult to successfully defend a firearms law against aly challenge under the constitution unless you can pointed to a specific credit historical relation looks like the relation under review and in the case of intervention, literally needed today because firearms and firearms violence looks different today and has lookingok historically be when e virtually impossible to find historical schism said to satisfy this protest and took the test the seams devised to lead to the invalidation of most firearms clause and see with the core business case and also the cardio case to import a gun case pending right up so it could involve some of the logic of bruins but right now i think it makes extraordinarily difficult. >> and if he is to do the kind of reforms that senator white house spoke about the first

panel a lot of folks are advocating foror with this poll the supreme court back from the opinions of dark many donors are championing. >> will servicing i think in some ways it justices and donors are kind of oars rowing in the same direction not sure always confess there's place for the donors buying outcomes and decisions but i think that certain leaders emily and her relationship between intimate i think that taking seriously the imperativeer of imposing accountability mechanism will yield in jurisprudence whether that's a direct result of fighting are now. >> of course and thank you soa much and i think when we talk about the issue we should be talking about ethics as a relates to people in the court right now but also looking at the confirmation process and are funny influences the united states senators that will end up confirming to the people to get out of court of that helps that we see a lot of dark many also influence who actually uses in the court person the decision what's already and i think you and i yelled back. >> thank you frost and shaw for outstanding questions and

answers and we know like to recognize congresswoman busch our distinguished colleague st. louis.ui >> thank you ranking member raskin advice ranking member alexandria ocasio-cortez for convening this important roundtable and though we are here today to tell hard truths about the myths of impartiality of supreme court justices my colleagues out the clear and egregious violations of the needs we newly implemented standards that exist for the courts. and is it appalling that justice scaliahe and his wife after january 6 after the insurrection while the court was rolling on the 2020 election case well absolutely right and ask of the recordings about that were released just yesterday, provided resilient other extremism this can we know just the latest example of long-standing corruption in the extremism of the right wing

injustices and in truth is supreme court has never been completely impartial and they've learned more and marshall 1957 in the case arising out of my district in missouri for the supreme court decided by people could not be considered american citizens. no surprise the court had for people who enslaved black people on it and justices calling the names, james wayne, peter daniels, john campbell and chong and the u.s. supreme court was not impartial in 1927 when genesis justice oliver wendell holmes wrote the opinion in a post monopoly sterilization people with disabilities were 1986 with the majority of this report justices and power the harbor despite almost upset is obsessive focus on homosexual

activity. and according to their own peer justice and here he blackman in his dissent in his obsession voted to green light for criminalization of gay and relationships and that decision i could go on and on but in the interest of time, the sooner accepted the emperor house no moving on obvious truths, the better that we will be to put in meaningful present people with clear bias and invest monetary interest in the outcome of the u.s. supreme court cases from divining those same cases in a minimum he should be recusing himself in the senate judiciary committee should investigate and beginning on the facts there should beon debate inquiry and s true for justice thomas and is many many outrageous scandals pretty both justice scalia can

spread themselves the federal judiciary and our country from further humiliation resigning now. as we obviously we cannot count on these men to do the right things and this is why all except introduce the judiciary act bill that would ask for use into to bring image nine — 13 justices and this is just one of the many reforms needed to dilute and control the almost limitless power these corrupt justices yelled and we know the corruption of the supreme court it affects us all and in the next month them including the pro insurrection wing will rule on access to medication abortion the rights of, in house people n hopes claim of immunity against connection with generally six, the lack of neutrality's have been so irrefutably documented to congress genuinely wants to restore the public confidence and must remove the lawless judges and expend the court and is to do term limits of

professor shaw, i would like to ask you. about the decisions that these far right justices are handing down to what is that mean for real people like in st. louis no can you talk about the reports that are called when on our communities by these decisions; mentioned in my opening the impact of the regulations targeted and some of the reasons administered more cases maybe i will just a couple of words about the abortion cases on the court docket right now so the court is considering outlandish challenge brought in texas to the priest on one of the two drugs medication abortion protocols, from a group of midday abortion doctors, the most tenuous of claims the legal right to be in court to challenge the fda's approval regulatory decision and yes, district judge texas sided with him of both her ability to be imported their substances claim the validityth the approval andf the fifth circuit roll that back

to integrate but it did a great some of the fta addend listing restrictions on aspects of it was unlawful in the case number should be allowed to be heard in the first place the supreme court currently deciding what is when you do that case i think most likely the standing in ellisville it wasin too much evn for the springfo court to be accepted in that thrown out attending rounds and it will remain available on the terms and is currently available on it but there's case waiting in the wings provide stasis of doctors and neck is an think it will be reported to supreme court a year summer talking about access to often a needed it widely used medication that is most common method of ending a pregnancy across the country and the court has the ability to render that essentially unavailable to america's a potentially this decision but certainly a decision within the next year to so i think that is one example i think he's inth the kind of this we are talking about. >> thank you so much professor shaw.

>> thank you and recognize that distinguished anyone from new york goldman for five minutes. [inaudible conversations]. >> i wanted talk about the most recent issue related to samuel alito and as you probably know, congressman johnson was here earlier at 45 ever alex and justice scalia laying out the obvious and clear conflict of interest the yard under any code of ethics and as well as the constitution and federaltu law. at the same time center white house and senator durbin also wrote to me to with chief justice roberts and in response, samuel alito sent back to all of us and it is quite a remarkable

letter and i'm sure you will agree. his reason you discussed it a little bit and the first thing that i would point out is that there is no mention of any of the worst precedents on this issue there is no mention in the fundamental notion that no one can be the judge and the jury in his or her own case which has been applied to judges decisions on recusal right and there is nothing in his explanation that addresses those issues correct okay and then you are talking about 28455, the federal recusal statute which applies to any justice judge or magistrate judge.ra ... any way to interpret that as to exclude supreme court justices? >> no, congressman, a very

specifically applies to supreme court justices. >> in his letter justifying why he's not recusing, justice alito cites to the supreme general use air quotes ethical code off conduct. which is non- binding and nonenforceable. it uses the standard in the supreme court code of conduct. which said adjuster should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding that judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. the code of conduct there is an example of that. that is the identical language section a of subsection 455. now, i agree with you

wholeheartedly. it's an analysis of whether or not anyone could reasonably question his impartiality. went to go to subsection b of the federal statute which he does not address. and subsection b he should also disqualify himself in the followinglf circumstances. subsection one. where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party a. now let's give him the benefit of the doubt and blame everything on his wife because that is veryy convenient. i suppose you could make an argument that he has not exhibited a personal bias by his wife hanging a clearly political flag on his house. their recent revelations they are not in a recording that he

views his role in the political landscape right now is whether one side or the other will win rand he clearly puts himself on onee side. is that what your understanding of the recording and reporting in the "rolling stone" is? >> is a fair interpretation of thatat recording. i think given the big context of that recording i would not hang my hat on a recusal of b-1 is strongly as the first revision you mention. there certainly an argument recused bype some personal bias. particularly given what we know of samuel alito's long-standing partisan affiliation in an allegiance to the outcomes and goals of the republican party agenda. >> to be clear', we are talk about an effort to overturn an election but a barely particular

political event. so he would not have to recuse in every case if he had a political bias. in my last couple seconds i want to point to another section here which she does not address nor i think he could i explain. we just subsection b5 which refers to the judge or his spouse is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. based on what we know assuming it's all mrs. alito am i correct it is pretty clear that mrs. alito at a minimum has expressed an interest in the outcome of the two generate six cases of progress and put you brought up that provision i think is directly relevant to questions of recusal in the trump instruction case the

question depends a bit on the legal precedent for whether that would constitute an interest in the outcome of the proceedings. that provision very clearly applies to the spouse of justice thomas who we know was a material witness in the generate sixth committee who was directly involved in trump's stop the steel movement that clearly requires justice thomas disqualification even more so that it might require justice alito per. >> thanke you. and as i turn this back over and my over long time, the fact that justice alito thanks he can just submit an explanation a self-serving explanation without any independent investigation for the any independent accountability. without any vetting of the facts. especially as we have now seen onect of the fact witnesses has disputed his account is part of

the reason my eye introduces supreme court ethics investigation act last week which was created independent office of independent counsel which is so, so sorely needed. think the ranking member for your indulgence for. >> event, thank you congressman for your leadership in your passion on this. i'm going to turn to our distinguished club calling from massachusetts for five minutes. >> thanks to ranking member raskin vice ranking for convening today's shadow hearing on the supreme court. a very apt description give the secrecy and corruption of far right justices that's been happening in the shadows. i'm a firm believer in the sunlight is the best disinfectant we need transparency. while republicans have ignored today's hearing is c critical fr letting the american public know hagstrom is on the right are coordinating across branches of government for wholesale widespread policy violence.

have you heard a project 2025? 's cumbersome and yes i have picnics my colleagues and i have been raising the alarm on project 2025 the far right manifesto has hundreds of pages of extremist policies to destroy the federal government as we know everything from national abortion and to eliminate department of education. agencies in the executive branch the judiciary. the only way right wing extremists would be able to ensure their policies as if the supreme court will back them. that is her pubic dark money at racketeer, leonard leo step in. senate judiciary committee subpoenaed leonard leo's part of this up in court ethics investigation. can you explain briefly why it leonard leo is under

investigation? >> i believe mr. leo's under investigation for his central role, not only in the selection of decades worth of a right-wing judicial nominees which iss not the direct target of the inquiry. but for his involvement in the scheme to reward these judges and justices with luxury travel, private jet trips, half million dollar yacht voyages to indonesia and the like investigative reporting over the past year has placed leo at the center of this billionaire justice matchmaking scheme. xsc leo is the connective tissue between many ethics scandal and supreme court dating all the way back to when he held clarence thomas confirmation the discrediting and smearing of anita hill. let the record reflect that still believe you professor help. leo's work to undermine democracy goes beyond supreme court uses dark money never to

the tune of $50 million. dealing with the heritage foundation is able to promote the antidemocratic agenda is through funders like him. little leo's by the supreme court to end chevron deference. can you explain why that matters when it comes to harmful policies from a conservative administration? >> yeses congressman. i'm so glad you brought up in the intersection with the court there's no coincidence very same collective dark money entities over 100 groups project 2025 sweeping plans to the 20th century through installing insulation of a personnel reorientation of our policies are the same ones have been behind that decades long court capture scheme. agendas are connected in very direct ways might co- panelists have sort of touched on terms of

the attacks on the administrative state plans to install almost monarchical vision of the executive branch drawn from decades of investment in something called the unitary executive theory members may recall for the bush era advanced to support president bush despicable portrait program. it's only be successful at this rate supreme court allows it so congress must act we have to expand the court to create balance and fairness. we do the binding and enforceable code of ethics to ensure accountability. we need investigation clarence thomas, brett kavanaugh and any others with a record of impropriety on the highest court in our nation. when court reform to save lives but make sense for me that justice cannot help his wife what to do him he can tell me what to do with my body. make it make sense. thank you.

>> think if your powerful questioning and testimony appreciated. coming to the distinguished gently from michigan for her five minutes per. >> thank you so much for thank you for ranking member raskin andng are vice chair. so, so incredibly important i get asked about this all the time in my district. i really do. they called the ethics crisis here in washington d.c. june what they called in detroit? can any of you guess? ranking member raskin vice chair what you think detroit calls it closer to the called and ethics crisis? what's he probably called a correction crisis per. >> that is exactly what they >> it. >> they don't even call justice clarence thomas they don't call justice clarence a call corruption clarence but that is what they call him.

they are incredibly angry and frustrated. whenhe you look at the definitin of corruption i don't know if you looked it up. look at the difference between the definition. you've got corruption, dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power typically involving bribery. i would love we already know arty know someof these, right? twenty years no reporting at all by corruption all cult might residents call corruption clarence, 20 i years. all the sudden we find out 38 destination vacations, 26 a private jet flights. six helicopter flights of multiple yacht trips republican billionaires the billionaire maga donors. it is amazing to me that you get to justice alito some alaskan fishing trip? how is that not corruption?

this is not an ethics crisis. the american people know what it is, it is corruption. it is bribery. that is why they are yelling, impeach them, remove them. any other person on any other job when it comes to any of my residence would be gone in an instant. and so for me i think we should begin to call it what it is out of respect to the many people impacted directly by the sets wake as to your director delta. i got schubert director i have to tell you i come from a community we have a right to breathe campaign or i thought smelling like sulfurli dioxide l that smell is normal. when i think of all the work you have to do to address the climate crisis. but th you address the fact that right now, even under current processes might residents call permission to pollute. we have oversight but is it stopping them from getting sick

we have residents putting white crosses in front of their homes and is a white cross campaign if you have cancer, survived cancer, died of cancer you are told with the white cross of people can visualize our whole neighborhood has been under literally paying the toll of investing so much in fossil fuel and again it's a predominately black and brown community. i want to hear from you. it is important. i note my residents feel the crash and what does this mean quest recall the actions we do and congress i tell them if you look at the civil d rights act o got watered down by the courts. it got weaker because of the courts we cannot have this impact as a threshold to show your civil rights have been violated. so it director, yc chevron deference important to the average american? >> the most basic level of this doctrine to lay it out very quickly it is the idea that congresse rights statutes intes

agency to carry them out. implicit in that as the agencies are supposed to take first crack at addressing any questions that come up. so just to give you an example of the types of questions that come up in the statute site work on and you are referencing in the clean water act and the drinking water standards act the statues refer to things like what is the best practical technology available? it islu a complicated term thats not necessary have an answer you cans find looking for a diction it congress told agencies to figure it out. to apply their expertise to apply the technical knowledge to listen to input from thean publc all that chevron deference framework say when agency does that right, when they follow the processfo they applied the bestf judgment and reaches a reasonable conclusion courts, which are not in a position to do any of those things should defer to the agency interpretation but that means of groups like your constituents go to an agency when progress before the agency that has a direct impact on their health is

stickier with the doctrine of chevron deference more likely to be a real victory that lasts and if it is subject to veto by some judges somewhere in the country but it might sound technical but it really does make a difference for all of us. we have corruption crisis literally an entity that could impactac our residents. coaches ofgo my schools there's literally garbage bags over their drinking fountains. garbagee bags over the drinking fountains surely each is in the first american woman serving in congress to children cannot learn if they are hungry. i really believe children cannot learn of our poisoning them is not just the area it's thehe war and so much more. i cannot just lead. keep reminding people to 11 or more toxins there now and our water were now going to allow this on checked on tethered group of folks again have been in many ways corrupted for quite a while making these decisions that impact our residents think you can for the here and i think it's so important, thank you.

>> a chair recognize a gentle lady from pennsylvania congressman lee. >> thank you vice ranking member and of course gratitude to you in the ranking member follow this important discussion. i will not give her republican colleagues. as someone in getting flashbacks from how a particular and specific a conversation should be i'mll going to try to have a layman conversation here. the mystifying the court is one of the most important things we need to do right now. as we are looking toward project 25 or all of these other issues capture of the court we need folks to understand dishonest companies that they get might think it is chief justice roberts that he does not resend the question about supreme court legitimacy. using documented cases of justices being wined and dined a

bitein billionaires their famils recuse themselves in cases where there wives are embroiled there linked insurrectionist flags as we heard outside their houses. all with zero consequences. whether we like it or not the supreme court is absolutely a legitimacy crisis recall the corruption crisis, and ethical crisis or legitimate crisis they fit over and dishonest mean approval of their rulings that is the approval of the job itself they are doing. november the supreme court try to placate us bye adopting a ce of ethics it is clear we have to go further. mr. aaronson of justice violates one of their adopted ethics roles, who investigates that violation? >> there is no provision in the ethics code that provides for any investigation of the justices they leave it up to themselves. >> what are the consequences of

the violation and who would enforce those consequences? >> congress of the supreme court made clear they don't think they can be held accountable either by congress or by the judicial conference which does regulate and discipline lower court judges there's no one there to hold them accountable at all. >> thank you but we essentially have a code with the teeth or function it serves as a way to get people to stop complaining and to keep the status quo. as a lawyer, we have to take continually education classes in ethics. we can be disbarred and disbanded to hold this account but when a lawyer violence in ethics rule who investigates that in sanctions lawyer? it's every state has its own authority serves a formal process in every state the process gets invokes if there is a ethical violation. >> what about when a state court judge violates their ethics code?th sleep mechanism vary state to state but their state disciplinary bodies do have significantly more investigate

investigativeenforcement authors minute couple of episodes recentlymo involving arguably of the disciplinary proceedings, targeting justices for unpopular statements or rulings. that can be abused. the point to your question it exists it is eight meaningful mechanism of enforcement ethical guidelines or books clock but about one member of congress text vice ranking member rask it might of the answers that. lexiethics committee is that one right question. >> the rest of the legal community and members of congress are subject to actual ethics standards enforcement. no matter how effective they are they do exist get our supreme court the supreme court with lifetime tenure has decided they don't need that level or review or scrutiny we do not need to know how hypothetical bad actors with the system we are seeing it right now. could you tell's help billionaire charles coke billion-dollar trust fund

manager leonard leo could have said impact of climate change underway. >> are not expert on the direct connections on the financing side of things. i can say and many of our cases we seek multiple groups raise the same kinds of legal arguments. it's just impossible to look at the briefing objectively and as it is not a significant degree of coordination and a significant amount of resources going into coming up with the arguments like the major questions doctrine. likehe setting the stage for overruling chevron deference that are detrimental to efforts to address climate change of the pressing environmental impacts. >> thank you procedure ports on for example coke is featured clarence thomas that one exclusive with hisk closest owr allies. along with leo. leo has arrange travel for clarence thomas and alito to meet withh billionaires. with time and mine we are about

too go and vote. quickly what is the recourse of the justices not recuse himself from a case? >> party to the proceeding can bring a motion is congressman raskin has proposed the justice department given the trump instruction case to disqualify them for it ultimately would still be up to the justice themselves whether to recuse themselves from that case but if i could amend my last answer just a bit, there is a process by which the judicial conference can review willful failures to disclose financial disclosures and refer thoseur questions to e attorney general the attorney general does have a role to play for. >> thank you. obviously we can go much further we going to conclude by saying we should not be living alternate reality that bullies are supreme court is free of corrupt influence. at this moment our climate, reproductive justice voting rights protections for our siblings and fundamental guard rails against racial discrimination sy are all under threat. this court isl being wined and

dined by the very people who i profit. so we mustn't call it out for what it isn't addressed corruption that exists in our legal system but thank you again for being with us today thank you for convening us of. >> thank you for such an excellent set of observations and questions. panelist, you've done a fantastic job but you can see why i am so proud of the democrats on house oversight committee. they're called the truth squad ever since they debunked and demolished the ridiculous impeachment drive against president biden but to date we are the truth and justiceda squ. let me follow up with the one question mostly we have any final thoughts i want to follow up on some things prompted by ms. lee's questioning. which is we have had a lot of judges in american history at every level the state level, the federal level who have done things wrong.

we have judges who have taken bribes and been impeached for we have had judges who are sexually harassed clerks. we have had judges who have engaged in party activity. we have had judges of own human beings have enslaved people there is nothing magic about being a judge or a justice. do any of you believe there is some reason we shouldn't have an ethics code that binds judicial officers the weight we have binding ethics codes on legislative officers or executive officers? any reason? >> more thanny that there is reason to have t higher standars for justices who are supposed to be impartial. and to hold themselves above reproach. as we have learned from this past years that scandals are very clearly not living up the hired standardization. >> yes.

and how about you jeff final thoughts for us on that question. >> i think the rules of the road have been trust us that has been the representation the justices have made for the public has maybe been willing to make that bargain when they believe the justice comport themselves in a noble and honorable fashion consistent with the rule of others every reason to believe maybe that was never the case is certainly not the case now. it seems of the pressing need for some more formal mechanism than trust us to ensure the highest levels of ethics and our highest court because it is certainly not the right time we have such unequal justice coming out of the court in such a sharp wealth inequality in society or peoplee will be different kinds of lies he made one post settlement would put it up and asked my staff to try to find out what the average amount of money spent on the family vacation and the united states? ica think we have got that someplace if someone would get it. i think it was around $3000 if you go to disney world for a long weekend with your family. is that right question $2840 is how much she would spend average

american family vacation. one of justice thomases 38 sugar daddy sponsored vacations was more than $500,000. and i am sorry, if you are making $300,000 if the taxpayers, pay for your own vacation. what about you? any final thoughts? >> i don't think i could put any better than professor shaw did xmas if you have any concluding thoughts question. >> of course that one of the major takeaways of what is importantwh so much of what we have discussed today is that the supreme court as a stones throw away fromdi this building but ty are nine justices that wear robes but they are not gods nor are they priests. and this idea that their authority is self generated and they are accountable to no one or nothing it is not just wrong.

it's of one of the most direct and dire threats to american democracy today. any degree of authority without accountability is a seed of purity. it is the seat of authoritarianism. we are seeing that play out today in the stripping of rights and bodily autonomy t of women d people across the country. and the stripping of a labor rights and labor movements of people across the country. people's right to drink clean water and breathe clean air. be constitutional and democratic crisis and threat this current corruption crisis on the court presents is a threat not just to the american way of life and american democracy. it is a threat to our lives. people have died and are dying after the dobbs decision. people have died and have died

with the rollback of environmental provisions.s we have seen this in the dumping of peace act and toxic waste throughout the united states. these are our lives on the line. the corruption crisis presented by thehe court is not just an offense to our democracy it is not just an offense to our morals. this is about people's lives on the line. and are being sacrificed for greed and for what? i think the take away for us today is the responsibility of this harm is not just solely on the court. it relies in congress. because it is not just one individual seeks to abuse their power were our democracy fails it is when there is a lack of accountability, standing up and response to an attempt at tierney that our democracy fails

that is why it's important we have accountability after january 6 attempted insurrection and involvement to overturn its white we need to have truly important sweeping and strong response to the crisis that render generally don't have we have the power to impeach for example none the less have a very powerful institutional interest and integrity on the supreme court. we are going to exercise our power and exercise our responsibility to help oversee and integrity in the judiciary.

want to thank my colleagues were doing such an outstanding job today on this. all of us who aspire and attain a public office where that your title is president or justice or congresswoman or senator we are wereall servants of the people. cross is usually defined to play. all of us ultimately serving the people of the united states. i want to thank our distinguished panel for your terrific presentation senator whitehouse for coming over and talking about the work that is been such a labor of love for many years now. i am glad somebody people up ann tuning in from around the country to this very important dialogue. we are picking up some traction we are going to be able to make a lot of changes in the weeks

and months and years ahead. thank you all for participating with that, the session is adjourned. [background noises] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[background noises] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we don't have the power to do it we are right up against inlawlessness. >> i'm sorry. can you talk about the senate judiciary committee? there's been criticism there not moving aggressively. what is your feeling on that? >> showed me there's there bringing the ethics.

the problem on the senate side. ni[inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> how important are the actions they know are going to fail? they're talk about bringing the ethics test with the white house ethics bill. we know there will be objections. how important are those moves to put the stake in the ground question. >> extremely important. the public will not understand any representative or senator for the supreme court. not want to be that republican senator the justices should be on the table? >> i think we should reserve all

the tools available to us. we have to believe and follow where we go. make sure we way all. >> the republicans today hold in contempt of the attorney general of the united states for not one 100% complying. he has complied with the subpoena is at least 99%. all of those are public servants whose roles are defined by the constitution itself. none of us are beyond the constitution. there talk about us entering a close constitutional america. they are acting as if those of us in government and theey power unbounded byow law that is intolerable. >> are facing from what are the

most basic practical steps that should be taken in the ethics? >> that is why aoc and i are planning to introduce a very simple bill which will apply the gift ban all of us in congress are subject to to the supreme court works very simply. basically none of us take gifts at all we do not take a cup of coffee at starbucks we pay for our own. the idea is any ambiguity on the supreme court is outrageous. >> of time for one more question. >> thanks for coming. thanks for hanging in. >> c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 years. here a highlight from a key moment. >> the distinguished. [laughter]

gentleman from california. >> i think my colleagues for yielding today my firstborn is to be married at 5:00 p.m. [applause] and again i find myself standing in the chamber praying this is not one more time when i miss one more event of young children that i love and that love me. to get married in 1990 as an act of love, it's an act of faith, it's an act of hope, it's an act of idealism. that veto is an act of cynicism. i ask you to cut off this debates. we know how we are going to but let's override this veto and let me love my son. >> c-span powered by cable. book tv every sunday on c-span2

features leading authors discuss in the latest nonfiction books. at 8:00 p.m. eastern cory with the american federation for children argues parents need to get more involved in their children's education regain control permit teachers union with his book the parent revolution. then at 10:00 p.m. eastern on after words, "new york times" author looks at that use of psychedelics and mental health treatment describes his own experience with them. interviewed by politico healthcare reporter aaron shoemaker. watch a book tv every sunday on c-span2 find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime a booktv.org. ♪ the supreme court has announced a new round of decisions has itsurrent term draws to an end the largest ruling announced today was a justice six -- three decision to

reverse a trump air executive ban on bump stocks for guns which allow semi automatic weapons to fire at a faster rate. the band, came into effect in 2017 was implemented by former president donald trump in the wake of the las vegas concert mass shooting the shooter is a bump stocks in the deadliest such attack in u.s. history. the supreme court will continue to issue decisions to the end of june current term ends. ruling still to come from justices include a case of presidential immunity. the alleged election interference efforts from former president trump while he is still in office. funded by these television companies and more including comcast. comcast is part of 1000 community centers trait wi-fi