continues. host: welcome back. we are joined by gabe roth, the executive director of fix the court. guest: thanks for having me. host: can you remind our viewers what fix the court is in how your funded? guest: fix the court is a title one nonprofit organization that advocates for openness and

transparency and accountability in the federal courts primarily in the u.s. supreme court. we have been doing this for about nine years. we are funded through donations from regular people and foundations. this -- specifically, we have gotten one big donation from a nonpartisan tech focused transparency foundation. generally, average people -- it is average people donating to help keep us going. host: talk about this new supreme court's ethics code. what is in it and how big of a deal as it? guest: it is a big deal because they have never done this in their 234 year history. we can talk about if it is a perfect code, but it is laid out in a way that is similar to the lower courts code of conduct which has not -- it lays out general principle saying what constitutes ethical behavior.

everything from not participating in political activity to upholding the integrity of the judiciary through their independence, to treating people who come into the courtroom with dignity and respect. it lays out general principles and a code of conduct is never going to be beyond general principle. i think there were missing pieces to it that for me and advocates that made the document, on the one hand, we get something, on the hand, it is not what we were hoping for. host: what were you hoping for? guest: there is three main holes in the document. there is certain insertions that are like, are you excusing justice thomas's behavior? is that something that justice alito did? there is no enforcement mechanism. if i justice fails to live up to the canons in the code, what we do? there is no way to hold them

accountable beyond impeachment and removal, which is never going to happen. there is no enforcement mechanisms. second, they are not creating an internal office that says, we are going to be a consistent guide for what consisted -- constitutes ethical behavior for the justices. prior to monday, each justice had the ability to go to a lot prefers her, -- a law professor. there was consistent advice being emanated from the court to help justices navigate ethical conundrums so there is no ethics office. third, there is no way to file a complaint against the justice. you are a lower court judge, there has been a federal law since 1980 that says any person can file a complaint against any judge. there is a way to say -- 99% of

these complaints are employees who usually go through them and say, these are the frivolous ones and the serious ones. any complaint, any misconduct, any ethical behavior, it can be looked into by a body of judicial peers. they can say, this was unethical behavior. we received this complaint. here is a reprimand. here is ethics training. here is anti-harassment training. here is a private reprimand because maybe it does not arise to the level where it needs to be made public, but talk to you in private to fix the problem. there was no inbox, no enforcement mechanisms. host: the supreme court issued a statement when they came out with these ethics rules, saying the court has long had the equivalent of common-law ethics

rules, the body of rules derived from a variety of sources, including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary, ethics advisory opinions, codes of conduct and historic practice. the absence of a code has led in recent years to the misunderstanding tha justices of this court, unlike all jurists in thi cou regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. to dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this code which largely represents the codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct. does this clear up any misunderstanding? guest: oh, god, no. that paragraph makes it worse. i do not know if you can put the full screen graphic back on, but what you are reading -- looking at the words that say, dispel the misunderstanding. what misunderstanding? there are justices. each of them has had ethics

classes. they have not responded adequately to these ethics classes. some are worse than others. it is us, the public, that has a misunderstanding? i think it is the justices that have a misunderstanding, saying they are trying to dispel this misunderstanding we are not beholden to ethics rules is just ridiculous. i hate using the term gas lighting because it is being thrown around so much these days. but, it is an equivalent of that. for years, there have been -- going back decades, we can talk about school leah or ginsberg or other justices not on the court. brennan got $100,000 when he was on the court. there are many justices that have failed to uphold their ethical responsibilities. i do not think it is the public that has a misunderstanding about ethics. i think it is justices who have misunderstandings about their

response billy's. even with the code, there is no guarantee they are going to step it up when it comes to moral character. host: given there is this ethics code, what if you could look back at controversies we have heard about recently regarding justices taking gifts, excepting luxury vacations are getting perks with book deals? how would this code handle that? what would be different? guest: i think the disclosures are not changing. there is a federal law that says every judicial officer has to file every annual disclosure report stating their finances, their trips, their, appointments their spousal income. the law is still in effect. it is not like, now we have this code and have to report more. no, we have this code and we are doing the half-ass reporting we

have been doing the past 40 years. you have to look at the language of the code, the part that makes the connection between what is in it and what has happened recently. to give one example, there was a -- the nra foundation had a flyer about a decade ago where it said, come meet my husband, justice thomas. you look at the code and it says, the justice can't knowingly participate in these fundraisers. is that excusing that behavior? is that excusing that pamphlet from the nra? justice alito, did he knowingly put on -- go on a trip with paul singer? anyone who is reading a newspaper between 2007 and 2014 when paul singer had cases in the supreme court knew that pulsing or ran ml capital -- new

that paul singer ran ml capital. that whole period, you are telling me alito was knowingly or unknowingly going on a trip with a guy that had a case between the supreme court? in terms of gifts, the code is digging in here. it says the justices have to follow the judicial conference regulations now in effect. there are these new regulations passed in march that apply to the justices and lower court judges that say anytime you go on a private plane, that does not count as personal hospitality and you have to report it. anytime you stay at a resort that is owned by a llc, you have to report it. there is no way a plane is personal hospitality. you have to report private planes. regardless, this is excusing the lack of reporting of private planes,, of resorts and saying going forward the regulations now in effect say you have to report them. that is all that matters when

there are still dozens of trips that -- you know about it, your viewers know about it, from thomases disclosures that have not -- from thomases wife that have not appeared on the disclosure in that is an oversight that the language of the code is unfortunately excusing. host: we are going to be getting to your calls and questions shortly. please start calling in at (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents on (202) 748-8002. gabe, you are not the only one who is disappointed with this code of ethics. the due -- the committee chair dick durbin expressed concerns about this code of conduct. here is a portion of his comments from the senate floor on monday. [video clip] >> got a glance at this code of conduct for justices of the supreme court, it is similar to the standards that apply to all other lower court federal judges. the court's code of conduct

important canons of the conduct, including canons on upholding integrity and avoiding impropriety in the appearance of impropriety. all of these are important steps, but they have all shard on what they could expect the supreme court issues a code of conduct. it specifically notes on a, for the most part, these principles are not new. that is a problem. the courts previous practices were plainly inadequate. the courts new code of conduct has not appeared to contain any meaningful enforcement mechanism to hold justices accountable for violations of code. it leaves a wide range of decisions up to the discretion of individual justices, including decisions on recusal from sitting on cases. i'm still reviewing the court's new code of conduct. for now, i will note the courts new adoption of this code marks

a step in the right direction. it may fall short of the ethical standards which other federal judges are held to, and that is unacceptable. if it falls short, the american people will ultimately have the last word. and the integrity of the court is an issue. we are going to carefully review this proposed code of conduct to evaluate whether it complies with our goal of the highest court in the land, that language with the lowest standard of ethics in our federal government. but, this released today, long overdue. begins a dialogue which could end and restoring the integrity of the court. host: gabe, what can congress do here? can congress impose an ethics code on the supreme court if they deem this one to be insufficient? guest: i think congress does have a role to play and i think moving forward with the senate judiciary ethics and transparency act would be helpful.

that bill does say it needs to have an ethics code, but the bill continues in the seven other sections that's as part of being ethical is tightening up the refusal -- the recusal whirls. -- rules. expanding it so you are in organization or individual and have spent millions of dollars pushing for a judicial confirmation, and then you have a case before the justices, the justice is required to recuse for six years after that gift was made. you have flown the justice around on a private plane, the justice for six years has to be recused of cases at the benefactor -- if the benefactor has cases before the supreme court. the bill talks about amicus briefs. they are supposed to be expert briefs that help the court understand arcane issues, but in reality it has been three men in a trench coat where one major donor is funding these different institutes, so there can be more

transparency around briefs. finally, that bill would also have gift regulations that are as stringent as memories of congress. right now if you are a member of congress -- i always use this example, senator lee and senator durbin, lose the asset institute. if you fly somewhere in january, the public is not going to hear about it for 17 months. it was filed 30 days after they came back. it said how much it cost. it is important to know how much the flight cost, the hotels, the entertainment, but the agenda was and who went with them. the fact the justices have to do a full percentage of what i mentioned and sometimes they do not file for up to 18 months after the fact when it is time to do accountability work is ridiculous. having rules that would require

reporting of trips and gifts which is in the bill would be important. there should be an inspector general for the judiciary. senator grassley introduced bills -- on the democratic side, senator blumenthal said he would like to see an inspector general. having a disinterested, third neutral party would be helpful for the -- four, friendly all of us, including the judea sherry to have. host: justice alito said i know this is a controversial view but i am willing to say it. no provision in the constitution giveshethe authority to regulate the supreme court, period. that is what he told the wall street journal in july. is he right? guest: of course not. he is wrong and he knows he is

wrong. look at their docket. 99.8% of their docket is appellate terrace diction. the appellate jurisdiction is set through congress. i do not know why he is being so flustery there. congress has all sorts of ways to regulate congress. they regulate where they sit, when they sit. their budget is regulated by congress. they get $150 million a year from taxpayers with very few conditions. only in the last few months -- i have been pushing for this forever -- only in the last few months have members of congress said, we will give you $150 million but withhold nonsecurity funding until you adopt a formal code of conduct. just saying, congress tries to change policy all sorts of

different ranches and agencies fund the money they give them. why are they not doing that for the supreme court? the power of the purse -- we could talk about that, but the power of the purse is where congress can say, you want your $150 million. fine, but it is going to come with conditions related to accountability. host: we have lots of questions coming in. dale in our load -- dale in arnold, missouri on the democratic line. caller: i would like to speak with mr. roth about ginny thomas'connection. and clarence thomas. shouldn't he be regulated by the attorney general because of the amount of fraud that the supreme court has been committed?

i hear you saying they are entitled to $150 million, but there should be paperwork sent in to our merrick garland, our attorney general, make sure that if it is not turned in at the right time then some charges should be brought on. host: let's let gabe respond. guest: that is a great point. in the federal law passed after watergate, it says for everyone -- the justices make about 300 thousand dollars a year and have financial disclosure requirements, their investments, their transactions. justice thomas has had plenty of opportunity to fix those errors, but he has willfully not. it says in the federal law of the judicial conference has reasonable cause to believe a justice or lower court judge has willfully omitted information about his disclosures, the judicial policymakers can refer that individual including a justice to the ginny -- to the attorney general.

the penalties, there are criminal penalties which are attenuated. there are several penalties of something like $50,000 per violation. i absolutely think that justice thomas's wallet should be lighter because of these omissions for years and years. the excuses he has made do not hold water. there are others who want a constitutional crisis of merrick garland bringing criminal and others who want the crisis of having justice thomas impeached. i am more of a practical person. he is not going to get -- we are not going to get 67 senators to remove him. there is clear federal statutes that says civil penalties for willful omissions from your disclosures. i am in touch with the committee that is in charge of forwarding that referral to the attorney general. i asked them what they're doing every week and have yet to get an answer form them -- from them.

hoadley, we get something soon. i agree with you that the attorney general's should ensure the justices are doing their required paperwork correctly. host: we have got questions from mike in keyport, new jersey asking about justice thomas and his wife and her hardline political activity. i wonder how these ethics policies impact family members of the justices. guest: yes, the ethics code does mention family. it says that family members should not be soliciting gifts, just like justices should not be soliciting gifts. but, there is this weird reference to the student loan payments about how if a justice's nephew has student loans, that does not mean the justice can read -- can participate in the student loan case. is that some reference to justice thomas is

pseudo-adoption of his grandnephew? harlan crow to pay $100,000? that was weird. that aside, this is -- there are definitely within the code provisions that are akin to the old saying about caesar's wife. even caesar's wife should be on reproach. there are definitely some justices whose political activities do touch on the business of the court in ways i think are unseemly. but, it is one of those things that could have gone farther and could have been more clear about what political activities are not allowed and which are not.

ns for the new headquarters and of teleworking government office space.