2 1/2s. >> welcome everybody to our democratic roundtable, entitled a high low standards and dark

money, flagging a supreme ethics crisis in america. we have some terrific panelists appear two different panels with us this afternoon. want to start by thanking my distinguished vice raking member committee from new york for her superb outstanding work on this panel and i do her journey pps to law school. she could go to law school part-time. this is what senator robert byrd did. i know that because he went to law school where ierican university, and he went on to become our preeminent constitutional champion in the senate. witness from the u.s. senate, senator sheldon whitehouse, who represents rhode island. he is the chair of the house-senate budget committee d working expertly to try to restore

integrity and reputation of the supreme court and to specifically comt the infiltration of dark money into the federal judiciary for many years. we are going to make our opening statements and then turned it over to you, senator whitehouse, unless you need to get back to the senate for a vote right no i am at your pleasure. >> welcome and tnk you for joining us. i will recognize myself now for my opening statement. then i will turned it over to the vice wrecking member. the crisis on the supreme court today has multiple dimensions to it. the ethical crisis which the whole country is talking abou's the doctrinal and political crises as well. th reinforcing and it all adds up to one pro crisis of constitutional legitimacy in the country. the seminal moment for understanding our current situation took place in 2000, with the 5-4 supreme versus gore to intervene in florida's electoral process to stop the counting of llots, thereby handing for president bush the natio vote loser

o presidency on the most fallacious and dubious of grounds. court never explking the counting more than 100,000 votes vindicated equalprotection a constitutional princame to the rights of racial minorities and women, much logic or integrity of their own when they said "our consideration ist circumstances for the problem of equal protection and election processes generally c that reasoning offered to deny presidential -- is of the precise opposite of the rule of the precise opposite of the rule of -- of the rule of law which depends on logic, reason and president. it did lead to the exquisite logical paradox that if you followed cannot treat the case as president, and says you cannot treat it as pr then the passage saying it cannot be precedent itself shouldn't be of federal state decisions have cited various aspects of this

outrageous decision. fors of undending, the supreme court's public reputation is in the gutter today the kgeorge w. bush's 5-4 victory in the supreme court allowed him not only to game john roberts as chief justice, but to replace justice that are day o'connor with samuel alito antiunion pro-nra federal society lawyer and judge. erev completely today if al gore had not been denied the presidency by the supremand we had i of justices alito and thomas today sp hypothetically, larry tribe and but that new right wingmajority which included clarence thomas, who marshall as appointee of george h. w. proceeded to dramatically erode the voting rights of the people and set the stage fence of political what the premises. there are many relevant cases in this genre, but consider this

key one, in 2013, and shelby county versus holder,ces cut the heart out of the voting rights act 1965 by essentially nullifying the central section five federal preclearance finding thatsection for coverage formula was now obsolete and dysfunctional because there more racism in the political system. ginsburg likened it to somewhat rainstorm because they weren't getting wet. decision, within weeks or months, led to a dramatic rise in voter suppression and disenfranchi tactics and skins throughout the south and in other areas, with ing online voter stration early voting, mail-in balloting, same-day reforms and imposing serious new blockades anduding photo i.d. laws, regular mass urges in the voting rolls of voters who missed a single election. and the of 868 polling

places predominately in african-american communities tately after the decision gettingts act and leading up to the 2016 president election. although hillary trumped by more than two point 5 million votes nationstill eked out an election college -- electoral college which are in 20 the popular vote loser then came to name three right-wing supreme court justices of his own, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh and amy three under a radically questionable and dubious circumstances. neil gorsuch got the seat that president obama had nominated judge merricanrt of a and was arguably, indisputably in my mindost qualified people ever to be nominated to the supreme court. disclosed a vacancthe death of justice scalia in february of 2016. president obama nominated merrick garland to fill the vacancy on 2016, but senator mitch wisdom, said there would

be no hearings or votes because men like before the new presidential term, was to close, and the people should decide. with only nine months to go. of course, the people had decided when president obamated to one of those genuine bona fide four- year terms as president. mcconnell successfully blocked any hearingsnto the nomination of merrick garland at any consideration of nomination. the seat remained vacant when president obama left office. when trump got in, he immediately nominated in the righ gorsuch. to demonstrate how arrogantdevil may care the right wing has gotten about running norms that might interfere with co-absolute determination to control the judiciary including thems and principles they have made up themselves in the past, consider that when justice ginsburg died on september 18, 2020 than two months before the general election, when early voting had alreadstates, mcconnell literally

be bound by the president he the senate with the merrick garland 's. the senate to ram through amy coney barrett's nomination like a thief in the night. everyone hererstands what happened there and a new documentary is coming brutal miscarriage of justice that took place. now donald trump is bragging all ov that "after 50 years of failure with nobody coming close, i was able to kill a roe v. wade, much to the shock of everyone." he and mitch mcconnell packed at the stacks and gerrymandered t now this right-wing corporate court, carefully si wade as diffuse right-wing untrammeled corporate power, has been demolishing women's abortion and contraceptive rights, voting rights ces environmental law, workers' rights, consumeriler rights, training government power and people whenever they

conflict. the court has beena rabid partisan actor. a few weeks ago, in alexander versus south carolin, the right-wing we majority up congressional redistricting plan that the plaintiffs described as a blatant racial gerrymander designed to thwart and dilute the voting rightafrican-american voters in south carolina. but the right wing majority held-american plaintiffs failed to motivated by race when it relocated thousands of congressional district, dramatically changing the pobalance of power that ticadistrict. justic majority instead that the legislature was merely seeking to make the seat cipro for republicans, which is a legitimate goal, he said, and does not violate equal protection. under this court, it violates ua protection when florida just tries to count ballots in florida. sn't violate equal protection when african-american voters are drawn outa of create a safe way to majority

republican district. constitution been reduced in this court to assume the blatantly unjust and like these, upholding white political supremacy, racial inequality, corporate powermocratic institutions. alltextualism and originalism today are nothing but a fraud o public. i want to get into that today, and i want tocitizens united if we get a chance, with senator whitehouse and i want to talk about the jurisprudence. the right-wing justices, five of them named to the court presidents elected in this century to the presidency after losing the popular vote, act entirely like the judicial arm of the republican party which represents a small m of the american people. it is no coincidence that justice and m alito brandished of right nationalists.

no coincidence that justice thomas takes millions of dollars from his right wing corporate sugar daddies. after aldecide presidential elections with 5-4 and vote in bush v gore, if you can gerrymander it not just congress, but the supreme court by denying the party a hearing, why can't you not friend in the court fly you to bali for vacation or pay for your tuition or value a recreational vehicle, or an lavish all expense paid vacation? why the hell not? the highest court in the land today s the loweal standard, they are the only jurists in the federal system who are traditionally rather than judge. and ideological jurisprudence, assaulting the rights of the people, and with their obscene have completely forfeited their right to be called justice. and unless i forget to do it from now on, they are just judge alito and judge thomas to me at best.hg i look forward to hearing from our excellent panelist about how we got into this

predicament, and how we can turn -- i will the advice of ranking member, ms. ocasio-cortez for any remarks she sees fit to give. rep. ocasio-cortez: thank you so much mr. chairman, ranking kin. it's an honor 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 u are member -- [laughs] -- i would be happy to explore possibility. but back to the matter at hand. the supreme court is currently facing a grave crisis of gitimacy crisis of its own making. about 50 years powerfulzhy around and realized that they were losing in 1964 the civil rights act had passed prohibiting discrimination in the united states on the basis of race color, religion, sex, or national origin.

in 1970, at a time when rivers were literally catchingollution, the federal government created the environmental protection finally taking a measure of responsibility for the health and safety of workd our climate, and confronting po process. and most alarmingly, to these men, three years later in 1973 the supreme court decided roe v. wade wctive freedom, and training a writer -- enshrining a privacy, and marking a major advancement for bodily rights and autonomy. the nation was changing. it was changing to more realized our country's promisedhe people, by the people, with liberty and justice for all. but the snow world, a multiracialoc d and economic rights enshrined threatened the power of the very peopled on this discrimination and segregation of others. these wealthy conserv men

knew they couldn't win the argument on merits. so they hatched acture a structural assault on the american judicial system. in 1973, the same year as roe v. wade, the heritage foundation was born, and with that, a decades-long scheme to push back on these ideals and cement a hierarchy that these men, the top to roll back 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 havelected office. but what they did have was money, and a lot of it. dly -- leonardhe became one oft of most prolific fundraisers. he organized right wing up infrastructu to influence the judicial nomination process and seats on the supreme court

wholesale. he funded after group to spread he is his billionaire friends' reaction ideology. such as oil and gas magnet charles koch, hedge fund manager paul singer and nazi paraphernalia corlan. the of the "biggest private landlord in the united states these billionairesr they are unknown by the vast jority of americans. and yet they worked with figures led by leonard leo to create a corruption rating of influence that reached the highest levels of our country and outhese billionaires hatched a plan to use massive floods of anonymousúonatio condition, and outright gifts and ethics violations to reshape the courts.and so far to this day, th clear. justices clarence thomas and samuel alito are deeply subject

to and are exactly the agenda of these billionaires. and they l whose corruption is almost comical. secret retreats. international vacations on super yachts, and private jet new haven for an afternoon. we in congress are prohibited from receiving gifts that exceed eceived more than $4 million in gifts, largely undisclosed, since joining the court. and worse, it appears to be working. so he can side with charles network and their oil and gas france. the charles koch who he secretly vacationed with. or take his friendship with ll with more undisclosed gifts and private jet case. coincidentally, after justice fishing

trip to alaska with paul singer the supremeou c his case, ultimately leading him to a v netting 2.4 billion dollars. this was not a bad return on singer's $80 million in political donations, a fishingousand dollar wine. and of course,ionaires and their handpicked justices won their keystone victory against the american people and their the overturned roe v. wade. so why was it abortion? why was the threat of womerful enough to bring down our whole syste i of the coequal bvernment? that's because these rich and powerful men are in an a status quo that enshrines their power and places them the confluence of money and conservatism is no coincidence and we are here today to connect the dots. the group behind the dobbs by who else -- leonard leo, and found a friendly court in front

of right wing extremists. and we have also seen as well as the conservative justices clarence thomas and justice samuel alito. after all, these justices agree to this bargain by continuing to accept and engage in the spring of influe financial persuasion. this brings us to the cross of the -- the crux of the holding this hearing. the supreme court as it americans are losing fundamental right in the process. reproductive health care, civil liberties, voting rights, the right to organize clean air and water, because the supreme court hatured and corrupted by many. -- by money. itategy that led us to this point. a group of antidemocratic billionaires with their own ideological and economic agenda, has been working one of the three coequal branches of . and let's be clear, the supreme court is a coequal branch of

government. they do not reign supreme er congress for the white house. this is the very core crisis legitimacy and it is a core crisis within the democracy, and of who we are as a country. the responsibility for the erosion of the court not only lies in the port it lies in 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 our democracy's arsenal to fight back. of our democracy depends on it the future of our democracy depends on it. with that, i yield ranking member. rep. raskin: thank you very much. we will open with our fast panel, which is seto he has whistle on the ethical and constitutional deterioration of the supreme court for several years now, and he has focused a

lot of hisrgythe dark-money networks behind the corruption of the supreme court. he has a book which i recommend highly to you all called "the scheme: how the right wing used rksupreme court." he's introduced a lot of legislation to curb anonymous dark-money groups, including the end tax breaks for dark money act, which woulo to avoid capital gains taxes by donating money to dark money groups. and the disclosure act, which would require groups that spend money supporting or opposingjudicial nominees to disclose who their donors are from what i want to welcome you, senagto it has been a pleasure to work with you on this and alsoquestion of the oil and gas industry's complicity with the cover-up. science relating to climate -- the the science relating to climate change. you have a few remarks. sen. whitehouse: thank you very much congressman raskin, it's a pleasure to with you and with vice ranking member as particular shout-out also to congressman hank johnson, who has the coordinate position that iche democrat on the courts

subcommittee of the judici committee, and who has been across several years and many issues. t for this conversation is rooted the doctrines of regulatory captureture. these are doctrines about which literature and msome decades the evil genius of the scheme was to take the tactics of regulatory capture, agency capture, and not to administrative agencies, back to our courts particularly to our supreme and in thef that, we have seen the judicial selection process nominally s of the federalist society, you can't actually find recommendations or support for the so-called trump list. that was cooked up in a room

byer funding billionairesuts them on the court, then the billio amenable justices are provided rich and famous. at the fund dark-many factories in friendly think tanks and universities and the doctrines thaare cooked up there like about major question the doctrinere then brought to the court through the tillers of in sort of 10 to 15-number flotillas, but sometimes as many as 50, in the cases where the billionaires really want to signal hard to theithis is a big one and they need and of course, the whole thing is juiced with dark money funding all of these various enterprises, and also finding

senate republicans, who then obediently provide confirmation ed justices. what are we doing about that over in the senate? ive you a quick run through. first of all, we have been trying on the ms. chiefat within the court and within the judiciary for it to manage its own. we have seen some success from from don't bother us, go away took, here is a letter signed by all nine of us to discuss that we take with regard to our ethics. two, ok, that didn't work, here e we are adopting for ourselves with a few modifications, and most importantly, no investigation,cement. so they are very big gaps in where we are. the nine justices of the u.s. are the only officials in the entirety of the u.s. as to whom when

an ethics challenge is there is no fact-finding done. even the president had to be interviewed about the status of documents his garage. not these nine. they are the only ones. the pressure campaign has worked , to the degree that they least nominally under an ethics code, but we need to keep the pressure on until they join the rest of the government and ha aving real ethics code with real fact-finding and some prospect for comparing the facts that are found to the rules. that is avenue avenue two is one. legislation, the ethicsve through the senate judiciary committee waiting for a vote. i expect we will have thatin this congress. and a term-limit bill, and i want to congratulate congressman johnson for his termwe don't have perfect alignment between our bills, but we are pointing in th direction

and we are not going to pass them until theotd at that point, i think we are close enough that we can easily reconcile our bills and provide real term limits that the public really likesorthat 3rd avenue is investigation. i sit on the judiciboth committees have been engaged in investigative activities. the judiciary committee gave chairman durbin subpoena authority, and that investigations are being pursuedower of that subpoenanote that the power of that subpoena authority has been somewhat limited by the loud declarations by republican senators that the subject of those subpoenas should not comply with them, and that theyenforced if the subjects refused to respond. soand pray that the table, when the house is issuing subpoenas in the space, that aren't subject to the senate filibuster. on thean side, the finance committee develop the information that the quarter was never repaid. some interest was paid, then all

payments stopped. we can today to look into the final facts of what actually took place. but no principal on a quarter million dollar l to have been repaired. harlan crowe appears to be playing tax games with the yacht e arou and then in some places, he called it a pleasure yachtin some cases he called it a charter yacht. we interviewed his crew who said he could never remember a charter, yetillions of dollars in tax deductions as if it were a charter yacht. it looks a like a billionaire deducting the expense of operating his own toys . so that remains under further investigation. the 4th avenue, has been working with the judicial conference other distinguished senior judges, chief judges from circuit and district courts, who ar oversight body for the judicial branch within the it's a body established by congress to enforce laws passed by congress, and they have given

two integrity that i think are very important. the first was to exclude what i call the "scalia trick." the scalia trick was to arrange for the owner of a private resort to invite justice scali on the free vacation, an then vacation on the theory that the free gifted by the owner of the resort whom he may never have met was a personal invitation. end as a personal invitation, it therefore ountspitality and needn't be disclosed. we believe took over 60, 60 of these free the judicial conference took a look at that and blew it to smithat would never fly in any circuit court or any district court in the victory for transparency there

if you go back to my description , it involved communicating to the justices what it was that through these flotillas of front groupen not disclose who was really behind them. in one occasion, a brief was filed by an entity which is not even a reacorporate entity it it was the fictitious name under virginia corporate law for a separate corporate entity under which fictitious name thatorate entity had registered to do business. they didurt and to the other parties who the real corporate entity was for whom this was the fictitious name. d, week the judicial conference announced its new rule demanding significantlybetter disclosure pulled the bad news is we have a rogue court captured by special in that over and over again in a appalling, continuing to follow the direction of the

billionaires in the fund groups through which they operate. the good news is the public is fed up congress is fed up, mostly, and the judicial conference is beginning to ti up the rules on the supreme court justices. pointing out that the case is often made that congress has nothing to say about it regulating the ethical conduct of the supreme court justices. the supreme court justices owned behavior belies that notion. when the first round -- harlan crow to clarence thomas gift of jet travel came out back in 2010 and 2011r where, to the judicia conference, a body established by congress, for what, for review under the disclosure laws passed by congress. through all of that process we volved in that point out weaknesses in the process but with didn't happen in that process

was for justice thomas and any other supreme court justice to say, you have notyme, i am not subject to the disure rules, you cannot investigate me, there is even a remedy, if it looks like the failure to disclose was willful for disclosureinvestigation, and that qurow to justice thomas second round of gift should be referred to a ght now. click thank you very much, we are now going to enter into our q&a portion. each member of theht committee will be given five minutes. we are delighted to be joined by hankco from georgia who chairs the subcommittee on the court there. we are going to give your five minutes as well. i am going to kick itat is the relationships in the white house between the of the justices and the public corruption of justice? because you can imagine if we had a squeaky clean justice alito and a squeaky clean

justice thomas on, they could still be visiting all of this damage and allr legal doctrines. somehow to me it seems like it's not just a coincidence and a happenstance that we get the steamroller against all the legislative output of the civil rights movement, the women's movement, at the same time that we the astounding private corruption of the justices. just wondering your reflections on that. bias in the

so the pattern is v telling. and if you think back to where it agency capture which is court capture came from, began with ke railroad barons put in their folks under the railroad commission that the railroad rates and commissions that would be exactlyso the model fits, the pattern fits, and what else fits is that where there is a discrepancy between where conservative doctrine would take you and where the interests the billionaires behind the scheme would take you they check the conservative d curb and go with what they know is wa' of that than citizens united which is about the least originalist historic bion you could possibly imagine. >> it has nothing to do with the >> if you want to find the original you have to look to the defense. >> the right wing does seem to be very anxiou america today

because american people rejecte idea of an umpire calling ballsoberts put it in his confirmation hearings before you, they know that umpires don't put up flags of oneres don't have their wives lobbying to overturn the results of game, and they know that empires are not given million chips by the owners of the specificso they've got a real problem. but what theythat we are violating the separation of 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. you have thought a lot about that, is this an assault on powers that the american people and their representatives id of this ethical crisis? >> it is on the separation of powers then congress providing ethics and disciplinary rules for executive branch officials would be. which we do all the time.

>> and we've done >> in fact we have seen senior executive branch officials get prosecuted as for 18 usc 1001 false statement for failures to disclose gifts and emoluments that are pretty minor when you consider the scale of the billionaire gift program for the amenable justices. >> and if supposed to have these overlapping checks and balances, why do we hawer to impeach supreme court justices and convict them? why do we have thecontrol their budget and the power to control the appellate calendar and their appellate jurisdictions? th argument seems overwrought to me. i want to ask you about there has been a clamor in the country to try to gejund thomas to recruits from -- recuse from january cases before the supreme court right now. extraordinary indicationer presidential immunity from

n for crimes that may have been committed while in office ahe t other relates to interpretation of a particular statute. t i have beenea that the department of justice could seek supreme court to compel to's -- to recuse theves in t case law and doctrine roberts has come out very quickly and said, no, that cannot happenth court is not going to get involved, what is it vindicate the very intuitive notion that no judge no person should be a e >> the most obviat we could do would be to make sure that there is proper and honesting about what actually took place. law is propereverywhere you go,

officials are subject to proper ding when claims are brought against them, except for nine individuals who are the supreme court justices. and we have seen this play out in the recusal because justice thomas refused ever to disclose what the facts are he knew about his wife's insurrection acty the absolutely set of facts that determine whether he should have recused himself in january 6 related cases. similarly we have seen justice alito discussing his maga battle flags make factual assertions that are not true as regards the timing ofso just getting the facts right will make a really important difference.in the notion that nobody can-- a supreme court employee -- then no supreme court staff attorney could go in and say

sir,e'legation about you, we need to settle it. i need an hour of your time to answer some questions. this is a's -- this is a formal statement for purposes of the way the federal law a response to truth telling, could you tell me about this, that in the other and at the end wn would you mind signing the statement? that does not impede separation of powers at all and they could set up readily, then at least you would have a true statement of what are compared to how everybody else in thequick thank y senator for always flying the flag white side up and reading the constitution in forward direction. i will yell now to miss ocasio-cortez. >> you senator for joining us today. you mentioned your opening remarks mechanism. the judicial conference that the created by congress in 1922

well over 100 year sicko to it and enforce rules on the judicial branch, the judicial conference was created to address unethical conversations almostd seeing in clarence thomas case in samuel alito's case. to really sort through, as you about when these situations arise, but there is a problem here that we are running up against when it comescourt, and i believe it is that the court has to allow investigations and information and comply with investigationsrence. and i think that's where we get to the crux of one of the crises that it is unfolding from the court. which is the role hi justice roberts in how hepresides of the court, the decisions that he is making with this misconduct going on can you how the

supreme court and specifically the chief justice have these scandals and responded to your oversight attemindicated a path forward in terms of how they seem to engage in oversight investigation? like the chief justice is the chair of the judicial conference, he is the only member of the it and in that role he has e to kill off the scalia trick and he has allowed the judicial conference to investigate just dealings with harlan crow and ongoing investigation right and he hasess of cleaning up the secret faked and the flotilla's. he could do more, i suspect he could do more as chief justice it strikes me that if this is the court that could take away women's rights to their bodily

autonomy by a simple majority, affecting 160 million people in this country, rough, they ought to, byrity be able to apply themselves the same kind of ethics procedures every judge has to follow. quakes can you speak a little bit as well as to some of the direct engagement between the court in congress directly, as oversight investigations happening in the senate from the sena itself and as you mentioned in your opening remarks, that you may have some republican colleagues that are claiming that the supreme court should not compl should a subpoena to issued by congress misconduct of the court. i think it's veus to understand the crisis that that could potentially present. as three court with the potential subpoena issued by congrs

what would be the implications of such a radical act, and what could that unleash on our democracy? to find out. that the chief justice has declined repeated invitations, both to come to a senate judiciary hearing and meettors on the judiciary committee to discuss the problems over at the in the context of the request for him to discuss incident with what i call the maggot battle -- maga battle flags. justice alito intervened without interest -- without an invitation from congress and senate chairman durbin and i a letter with his version of events. so, they have not been completely incommunicado the way justice thomas has beed know one interesting

thing about justice thoma us. he is generally completely mute when it comes to questions about ethics and facts, but when the judicial conference exploded the scalia trick, that's thetiad something to say. and what he said was, i will with this new rule. and everybody in washington looked at, i will comply and got completely transfixed with that but his lawyers -- the room would know, the operative language in that sentence is, this new rule. the explosion of the scalia described by the clarification, which means retroactive, which means he and justice alito would have to go back and clean a lot of ms. filings. the only time he has spoken of the -- these issues this new rule, he was closing a door for himself in contrast of the language actually used in the letter me by the judicial

conference in the judicial conference i reviewing whether, when they said cln, clarification, and if they make that decision, we will lea a gifts program. >> very briefly, so much of the structure of our democracy governance relies on checks and e system of checks and balances between these three coequald, much o court or congress, the expectation is that those branches would comply with the ruling of the court. and this comes to a court of enforcement and i suppose the question i would if the court does not comply with congress, wet mechanism and authority do they wishor use to have congress comply with them? >> there is a biting tension

that congressman raskin knows better than anyone in separation of power between the separation the branches and the co-inequality of the branches as checks and balances on one another. and that is very much the having with the court right now and with some of our republican colleagues who see only the separation of th but don't see the koa quality of the checks and balances. >> thank you very much i'm going to movely now because senator whitehouse is going to have to leave at fi and then i'm coming to ms. stansberry. hopefully we will get in the up with you guys in the next panel. u are recognized for five minutes. click would like to ask you about dark money. i would like yoto with dark money is, who controls it e purpose of this so-called dark money? >> darke rot in our

democracy right now. it is controlled by definition, - 5 biiointerests who have the ability to spend millions and millions of dollars in. the motive to spend millions and millions politics an 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, ifzens united decision closely, it stands money is corrupting, which isough the elaborate pretense about how all this money would be transparent. so, we can fix it, the disclose of hr one in the last congress when i the voters vote for reform in the coming elections that we are able to pass that villa and

clear the dark money out our politics. as a climate advocate, i watched on climate issues in the senate dropped dead january of 2010 from a very robust bipartisan conver which the flag carrier john mccain for the and that presidential race at a perfectly good climate platform to, like a heart -- hearttack, if that lined up to january 2010, the date of the citizensepublican in the senate has e bill since. so it has a real effect that i think the fossil fuel industry spends a lot of the dark money, so they are happy at the situation they created and postponing climate regulation for over ae.ec. >> what is÷ dark money spent ho does -- how is dark money utily the outcome of supreme court desi >> the mt im

dark money under the purest definition term is money that is spent in politics by hidden special interests. so a special interest spends $20 million to a front group, the front super pac, the super pac then spends it in support against a candidate in only reports the front group. obviously the big special interests will communicate to the candidate they are supporting. we just spent $20 million for you, it's only the public that's left for you in the dark 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, it's a concerted effort i dark many cords that are preventing the argument inmo justices. and if there is one consistency right

wing justices it's their alignment with what's provided by those dark money groups. >> i would like to askou dark money is utilized to help sway the outcome of supreme court decisions. for example, in terms of the nomination and confirmation of judges administrations? >> i would say i've used the phrase that this is the court that dark money bu and it built it through contributions to the republican party, it built it through front groups that were stood up, that eal who their real funding is. then go out and lobby for issues brief issues and in many ways litigate cases as the re-party -- real party in interest. they will find a convenience to be the nominal plaintiff, but those of us who know usually the client goes to find a lawyer.

when you'vech the lawyer is fighting a client to bring a case, that's a littleso it comes through throughout this whole scheme effort. >> thank you to the ranking member fischer having this hearing because the american people deserve answers and accountability. and not only are we seeing an ethical crisis in front of the supreme court, but it's really an institutional crisis because s about our democracy, the separation of powers and their role in american democracy. i want to be clear from the top at this is one of, if not, the political and activists courts we have ever seen in american history.

i we discussed here today captured by special interests, dark money and mega donorvolved in transforming the very fabric of american rights tora been every decision. abortion clean air act, clean water act climate change, s nd presidents that have stood not only for decades and generations back into the 19th century, but it's not just the courts, we've also seen it here in congress. the say interests and mega donors we are talking about app us through their proxies every single day on the witness stand. in fact we have had witnesses that are funded by the very same donors we are talkingday that are driving narratives that undermine the legislative branch, the very same insti democratic ad and ideas that americans have held dear for so long. and we have seen it time and 's important for folks to understand as we have been

discnce. this is something that has been donors and the organizations that they founded and they fund. the coke bs, the divorces, the harlan crow's, and those they funded like donald trump ustices that they advocated to be appointed to and then funded the campaign got through the senate confirmation public campaigns to ensure that they got there. while -- meanwhile, please justices and their families hav been going on multimillion dollar vacations on yachts and private planes funded by the very same billionaires while they have the actual#jin front of these courts through these dark money organizations. but, i want to just say you don't have to take for it because a picture says a thousand w case, a 4 million dollak money contribution to your supreme court justices. here we have justice thomas with

harlan crow, who incidentally was reness in front of our committee just a few weeks ago. on vacation together. here justice thomas and ginni thomas with harlan crow in m in indonesia. a trump rally. and as we all know, not only is she a mega supporter of donald trump and funded by organizations in the justice project that has business before the court that her sits on, she helped to plan the january 6 insurrection. on a fishing guided ship with paul singer, another mega donor. here they are, they caught some year in 2008. and of course, as we all have n the last couple of weeks, these foutside of justice alito's beach house right after january in his own personal house aligned with of co steal january 6 movement.

and here is the entire cascharacters brought to you and funded by dark money in their candidates right here with donald trump and ginni thomas and their appointees. it is fair to say that we not only have a traditional crisis buct institutions that underpin our democracy. we're talking about here. that is part of why i am cosponsor of your billator which mr. johnson is leading on in the house. which is why i introduced a bill with representative raskin to bring in an inspector general to the supreme court. what the really want to know and i get asked this every single day when i am lk. how are we going to get this done? given the political reality of where we are right now. given where this body is at. given where the court is at. how ar we going to get meaningful judicial reform? >> t time has

expired. >> in the dark days early world war ii before america came in full force winston churchill said to america,ve us the tools and we wil job." i think that's what eeo tell the american voter. give us your trust. give us th the job. >> i couldn't have it better. thank you, mr. chairman. miss stansberry and the distinguished gentlewoman from texas is recognized. >> i am because i am so thankful not only for your expertise, and into that for those that are watching, and do' are which allows you to be well you are crafting legislation. i want to makeme. so i will not be reading from my

prepared remarks instead i just want to talk about a couple of things. one of the things we have heard over and over especially this term is two-tiered justice system. e heard that term used in know how many times. couple of things. and tell to be some differences to specicrts.when we look at our lower federal courts. whether we are talking about the appellate or the trial agree that there is some form of that is in place for our lower courts that somehow is absent from your high court? >> that is when we look at things such as this idea of when a recusal should be in place. if into a child court right now anda recusal should take place we have a similar scenario taking place in georgia state court

where there are those that believe a recusal should take place. while the trial court has ruled they have the option of going to an appellate court. he case of what has been laid out by so many of my it relates to potential conflicts because potentially one of the perpetrators of january and also, obviously, we have dealt with the upside down flags that are assigned of solidarity with those same january 6 descendants. what type of recourse do we have when there is a conflict that exists? when i sayal about this, there are people that have never school that are saying even a there is an obvious conflict. what is the recourse onis there a recourse on the court when a justice decides they are not going to recuse themselves ry obvious conflict?

>> at the moment there is i agree that there may be some sort o a two-tiered justice system that's playing out in our country. seems like the two-tiered justice system is inuring to the benefit of the highest court in the land from what i can ascertain. as my colleague has already laid out, ms. stansbury, the people want to . as one of the cochairs for the court reform task force,pushing that we really want to hopefully see brought to fruition. obviously, we're not doinghis in a full committee hearing because the people that are running the madhouse ri now are not here for it. but we arebelieve in law and order and overall rule of law. when we talk about things such as expanding the court is there a history in this country of expanding the supreme court? >> it has been done by congress. >> it has been done by congress

leaifferent times. the last time was in 1869. i know this isn't necessarily your area of expertise, but would you agree that this countr since 1869? >> the population s considerably increased. we can agree on that. >> in addition to that, as someone who has practiced in state court and federal term limits exist in some in a number of state court systems, but we don't have it on the can you explain to us how potentially imposing term limits on the s could allow for hopefully some of the that we see coming through the court, some of the terrible influence, to hopefully finally make its way out of the court? >> limits for the court would, amongng allow for a regularies.

so that the court is not driven by the random impact of random fact of who a president is at the time a vacancy emerges.maybe not entirely take it away but make far less credible the effort that was done to stop merrick and install justice gorsuch in his place. it would make it far more regular and ordinary. make it more difficult for partisane from the court to make sur their party gets to fill the vacancy. they apolitical but they seem to try to clear out i am the presidency of tir own party. >> thank you, ms. crockett. i will come to our distinguished

colleague in the judiciary committee for his five i want to applaud you and the democratic members oversight committee for convening us today for this briefii want to thank our esteemed guest, the honorable senator whitehouse. the public,n people owe before court reform became so popular, you were in the trenches doing t groundwork to bring it to this point. the data is there. ons, the activities have been exposed. and the legislation to address those concerns is in the pipeline. i just saw a notreport that ethics legislation will be brought to the floor of the senate sometime this week. will that be the act or

some other ethics legislation? >> we are having a series of speeches on the senate floor this week. but i'm not aware that a vote has been scheduled. >> well, maybe that rep i think that report was about a floor vote. >> nonetheless i'm house the cert act and the companion legislation in the senate, which you and term limit legislation which would address the where the right has taken hold. and rot tends to take hold in places where there is lifetime tenure with noah penn ability structures in place. can you enlighten us senator on thehat is set forward ie cert act and how it could help when situations like scalia's flying up the flags is exposed. >> first of all let me say a pleasure

it has been working with you on these issues. very well together and very closely together and i very much appreciate your advice and advocacy and friendship through all of our common work. the most important is that it directs the court to establish a process its own ethics review and if it refuses to then we provide one. it remains to be clear an ethicsnforcement program executed within the judicial branch. they don't have toocongress. this is not that kind of intrusion into the separation of powebut at the moment, the situation is that if you have an ethics complaint of the supreme court, there is not even an inbox to take your complaint.

there is no clerk on the others' line of the inbox to sort out the legitimate complaintsuff. the legitimate complaints have no place to go withinou cthere is no process forny justice to have to answer any question ever about what the actual facts are. there is no ultimate provided about what the actual facts are. and there is no opportunity for any neutral judicial conference itself or a panelto take what the report declared and compare it to theules as they enforce them throughout the federal judiciary a sayall of that can be built. mhwithin the judicial branch. and all of it would avoid the accountability chasm that is at the heart of the supreme court's without congress taking action, is that

the chief justice does nothing that would prevent the chief justice from order an investigation of a complaint that may come to be filed against a justice such as establishing a tribunal the judicial conference, to investigate and make recommendations? >> i would think the chief justice would have brought he may choose to setthe process separately and then execute through the process. he may wish to seek a majority vote to see that he has the support of the court in doing so. there is a lot of flexibility t want to comment in too much depth. administrative chief of the supreme court. the chair of the judicial conference. broad judicial authority and the responsibility to see to it that the judicial government branch operates ethically and

properly and with accountability and with transparency. he hasity and he has the tools to achieve them, i believe. >> mr., thank you for joining us. senator whitehouse, thank you for working so hard. thank you an unflagging champion for the constitution and the rule of law. >> i'm grateful for the attention that you all have provided issue. look forward to working with you in the mon ahead happily in the congress ahead to put this problem behind us. >> we will bring up now our second panel. when we pick up with questions we will start with the people who were not that includes mr. connaught. i see mr. goldman has joined us. please welcome to the dais alex ar executive director of court accountability. he previously was the chief council senator whitehouse on

the senate judiciary committee. he is an expert on dark money policy expert on judicial ethics. kate shaw is a professor of law at the university of pennsylvania. 's office. she cohosts the supreme court focused podcastalled strict scrutiny. legal advocacy and earth justice. she focu anticipating trends in judicial doctrine including the scope of federal power and judicial agency actions. we worku.s. department of justice office of legal council. welcome to all of you. each of u wi be recognized five minutes. mr. aronson, we will begin with you. >> ranking member grassley and member of casio cortez thank you for holdingthis important roundtable. the far right's supreme court poses an urgent threat to our democracye shared prosperity. i am heartened that you are giving it the attention it deserves. harrison of court accountability.

we founded court accountability last year to sound the about the right wing court project. our goal is to stop judicial power grabs by exposing and confronting coti-democratic abuses of power. this roundtable is an important step in that direction. the supreme court'sig super majority did not come about organically. the justices who took away reproductive freedoms made itqsenfranchised communities to vote and overturned a environmental protections. through a 50 year special interest campaignterested billionaires and installed through constitutional norm breaking. this campaign was designed to undo the social and economic progress of the 20th century. in turn into constitutional law that binds us all with roots to the brown v. board of education of the significant investment into the legal academy and other drivers of elite influence. the ai-democratic modes of jurisprudence, most notably

originalism as the dominant forms ion. these investments build a pipeline of ideological movement , loyal to their benefactors and eager to be instal tenured federal judges. to reward that loyaltyproviding half million dollar yacht voyages and free trips on privaterainer for the justices. this roundtable comes a critical moment. justice thomas' financial corruption justice alito's braz flapartisanship, the complicity of chief justice roberts and failing to rein in justices have given the american people well-fou impartiality. let me be very clear. it is heartbreaking that the americar quickly losing confidence in their supreme court. but they are right to be doing so. these far right justices victory to dark money interests atveryday people. some of these conquestsl(dobbs which

overturned roe and unleashed assaults on women's reproductive rights, or limiting the ability o to protect people from gun violence are all obvious. dobbs just the beginning. we can expect further attacks on reproductive freedoms based on theocratic theories like feudal to ban abortion nationwide by declaring it unconstitual under the 13th amendment. it would foreclose any legislative effort to protect reproductive freedoms. 's other award for its right-wing backers are the epa deployed theestions doctrine to curtail the government's ability to protect people from pollutions of voting start money reliably uses his to deliver victory to its allies. although it remains the high water mark for rulings, the court treatment of the tru case almost rises

to that level. by agreeing2ñ and delaying its ruling, the court has already ensured that trump's serious federal trial will not occur in the laughter election. in doing so,hese maga justices have arguably n trump his biggest campaign contribution to date. if patent is prologue, we should not hold our breaths for them to disclo the gjustice clarence thomas refused to recuse himscase, even though his wife ginni thomas, wasparticipant in the scheme to steal the election. who was lying not one but two maga flags associated with a deadly insurrection has refused to disqualify himself, defying the clear dictates of federal law. these unaccountable of justice and a lasting damage to the legitimacoas americans look for answers, this que becomes what congress, the people' is a lot. fo bans are aat g start and i commend senator whitehouse

and the committee for advancing legislation to make it clear that congress has a roll. term limits would go a long way toward restoring the court.congress should also use it is constitutional power to strip or limit the federal courts ation like the freedom to vote act and right tothe codification of roe. a trrecently affirmed there is no question that jurisdiction stripping is coti and there is recent bipartisan precedent for it. >> congress should exercise it authorities to disabuse justices that it lacks. i am hopeful and inspire that you are taking the initial steps needed to start the process. >> thank you for your testimony. professor shaw, five minutes. ranking member raskin, the opportunity to be here today.

i'm alvania cary law school. i want to focus on the relationship between supreme court and democracy. the recent substantive decisions, outside activities of justices, and the response to inquiries about those activities, the court is conducting itself in ways that are fundamentally inconsistent with basic separation of powers principles that are a core feature of our democracy. is asserting enormous power. it is exercising that it is refusing any and all accountability. s crystal clear, as it is every june as the country waits with baite breath to learn whether and how the court will append huge swaths of american law. this your questions include whether and how the court will e the capacity of agencies to regulate in ways that protect our health whether the court will permit government to li firearms or the ability of dangerous people including abusers to possess them. whether the court will allow the laws passed byongressl$ and signed by the president to be used to hold accountable the individuals charged with the

attack on the capitol. including the former president. the that it and essentially it alone will decide alll of us. although we don't yet know how we will rule in recent terms the court has vis-a-vis the democratically elected actors in government whose work the court is often eager to undo, and it has done this whole signals not subject to meaningful checks. e se dynamic not static to affect your grade that is healthy but allowing one set of institutional actors to dramatically expand their authority and resist ac pushback risks permanent damage to our constitutional say a few words about the court's recent cases. the court has not only acted in ways that are inconsistent with the role of the court in a democracy, it has undermined basic precepts of democracy. the first covered and ranking member raskin talked united, shelby, bush versus gore, so i went to her horse all of that. where the court wunderstood as largely functioning to facilitate democracy, it's clear this is a

court that no longer use that as its primary or indeed a role that the court serves at all. it may be less obvious bmportant is the anti-democratic character of the court's decision in dobbs in overruling roe v. wa dobbs perversely claimed to rest upon or vindicate pri democracy. but it returned to the question of abortion toprocess at precisely the moment when the court itself entered the system is unlikely to yield widely desired outcomes. the history and tradition method the court used in dobbs is a wildocratic one, binding the recognition of constitutional a past in which very few americans were meaningful participants in the production of law and legal meaning. this is on display in the courts administered of law cases. court has weaponized a highly skewed vision of the se powers and democracy to fundamentally undermine those values. this is particularly stark in the courts major election cases in w court deployed this

newly articulated doctrine to disable agencies under broad grants of authority from congress. the court is consiring whether overrule the 40-year-old chevron doctrine and whether to of agency adjudication. we don't know exactly what the court will do in those cases. but if it continues ont trajectory, i am confident at towing to curtail agency power and wthat, it will be profoundly undemocratic. each ofncy power cases i just mentioned involve challengesoat are the result of democratic choices made by administrations of both parties. in some ways more fundamentally, these are direct attacks on the democratic values of equality and pluralism. the cases that i thought to reduce state capacity have most focused on agencies at the center of inclusivemu regulation, labor protection, reproductive rightenrolet me briefly say a couple ofs of the separation of powers is that no single instution possesses unchecked powers. there are lots of examples from this court that it no longer believes in that principle.

believes it enforces separation of powers but is not subject to it. last july, justice alito told the wall street journal congress did not have the power to relate the court. th is inconsnt the text of the constuon.ch used less confrontational tone but similar in his unwillingness to even meet with senators durbin and white house in their efforts to address questions of ethics. it imperative, myongress can medicaid to the court that it is serious but questions of oversight, and it cannot let the chief justice have the last word even in that small exchange. allowing the chief justice to have the last word to my mind i notion that the court is not obligated to participate in the project of congressional oversight. there are lots of ways the committee can follow up with a member of chief justice'suestions in writing but it is critical that the chief justice not have that refusal stand. >> you are recognize for your five

minutes. >> thank you ranking member, of the committee for the opportunity to speak about doctrinal changes the supreme court is making. i want to spend my time v-shaped the federal courts duringhe are bearing fruit in official decisions right now and what this means depend on the kind of protection but the laws that i work onr act, the safe drinking water actvery day. to start, toi guess the conservative political actors who h reshape the federal judiciary and abuse that power to do so were q they were trying to do. don on the white house counsel the political action conference and explained that the trumpart of a coherent plan icial selection and the deregulatory efforts of the administration where the flip sides of the same coin. in 2022, senator mcconnell explained that the trump administration use the federalist a are of a

like mind. now the people in position to take advantage of thhaped courts have been clear about how emboldurts to advance their agenda. last november, a senior attorney at the pacific legal foundation, a group which describes one of its core areas of work as restrict:ding thfederal agencies says that for them money is never a problem. it's more efficient to achieve including all the way up to the supreme court. re efficient than lobbying with administrative agencies or winning clinical campaigns. given this set up of we y motivated litigation groups and a pri surprise that the federal courts are issuingadvance multiple lines of attacks on the way our government is structured now.

because it was in pursuit of what justice kagan described as a r of preventing agencies from doing important work even thou this set up was how we got decisions epa. courts had appointed itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy that case, on the clean water act. what does this all mean for us the kinds of environmental laws i work with our bedrock important statues that were designed to allows to solve pressing problems.can we trust that our drinking water won't cause canc send our kids to walk to school and know that the air they breathe is g to give them asthma? and on and on. congress know what they were doing. congress recognized the receipt -- these were serious problems, it set clear goals for our country to meet, and entrustes to carry out those commands. it did so because it

necessary scientific, resources to make sure that congress' commands on these laws are carried out. congress also gave us, the public who has a vested interest in making sure that our water is driable and our a clean, the ability to influence that process. those things are not perfect. this system has led to progress that we can and should be but in a world where the federal ciout giving respect to federal agencies and the statutes that congress wrote and perhaps even looking at them with a skeptical eye going into these cases. the world would look very different. this world is a threat to all of the progress we have made a do the work that still needs to be done to meet the goals and the agenda that these laws have set. and m for an that protect us from the kinds ofthank you. >> tha youo much for your excellent testimony. we are now going to resume with the questioning. and i want to start off with mr.

connor\\ha, you will be recognized for five minutes -- --, you will be reonvening us. mr. aronson, as you and many others havepfarlan crow, including free trips,te jets, private school. i know somet is very complex but it's actually pretty simple. harlan crow then has a real estate firm which has a case in fron thomas while he's giving them these gifts. i don't think you have to go to la school to know that this is a conflict of interest. am i missing something? >> no, congressman. you are not wrong at all. i have the federal recusal statute right here. it states that any justice shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. this statute is implicated by alito's flag justice thomas' willing receipt of, you know, years and

yests from a real estate magnate who has direct and indirec i think it's more than reasonable to conclude that his impartiality might be questioned reasonably, by this decade-long relationship and by the happy acceptance of all know, free luxury travel. >> justice alito, to your he has a stop the steel flag flying in front of his house. i respect his first amendment rights. he says he cannot tell his spouse what to do. i cannot tell my spouse what to do. but that's not the issue. right? the issue is, should he have a stop the steal flag in front of his house and then be case? it doesn't seem like you have to ben scay, you can have a flag, but you cannot then adjudicate a case that is about whether the election was stolen. am i missing something? >> i don't think you are missing something. justice alito has been a sinuous and trying to deflect blame just as justice, su -- justice thomas has tried to deflect blame.

a reasonable observer looking at the point congressman, justice alitos was flying outside his home. he does not conted it was his wife's decision to fire the flag. 's conclusion that no reasonable observer would be able totiality is just flatly false. >> i just want to say that the 344 gifts valued over $3 million. mean, congress is pretty broken $250, to put it in context. total unaccountability for the supreme court. professor shah, you may not know this but do you know the average age that a supreme court typically leaves the su>> i don't know. >> it is 78 years of age. of years they typically serve on the court? 28 years. longer than any point in american history. my question for you is, would you say that a court that has an agage leaving 78, that the justices serving for two or

three decades may explain why they are so blatantly out of touch with the most basic facts of modern life inc rights, lgbtq rights, and contraception? >> i think having younger justices on the court would be a salutary development. think it's a commission of a massivel court and life tenure and lack of accountability that are the brew we are experiencing. i think that's one aspect of what is so b supreme court right now. >> are there any requirements the saloon appointed to the spring court for life? i know you have to be a judge for life but is there any requirement you have to be on the supreme court for life? >> holding office behaviorpreted that. that's how we've always understood the constitution. >> it could be somebody on the supreme court, has term limits, then goes to a circuit court a circu judge right? hink there's a very strong argument that our ordinary understanding of a requirement of life tenure could be implemented in a different way.

it could be implemented in a way by statute without constitutional m court and remain a judge on a lower court without g an amendment to the constitution. i think that's an argument that has a lot of merit. >> do you think it's reasonable to have term limits for supreme court justices given their pension for fancy gifts the more years they stay and given how out of touch they are with the basic norms of modern america? >> i also think competitive context almost every state has term limits are asia units for t sjustices and there are good, pragmatic reasons for doing that. nk the pragmatic reasons are strong and their argument that one could do without requiring a constitutional amendment, which under five is virtually impossible today. >> thank you, professor shah, and congressman khanna further questioited to $50 gifts not $250. in fact, it's a good op>> may be in the silicon valley, it's different. >> when another distinguished gentleman from california takes no gifts at all, which is why --

we know the distinguished gentleman from good sadow, which is why. he does another congressman ocasio-cortez and i are writing legislation to apply the $50 gift been, which worcongress, to the spring court itself. and we are going to be unand which are not recognize our great colleague from florida maxwell frost, for his five minutes of questioning. >> thank you so much to ranking member raskin and vice ranking memb the integrity of our judicial system is something i have had to focusflorida, especially of reason. we had a state attorney who wasntly. the stacked state supreme court wathroughout the case. we will see what happens in november with reinstating her and the will of the voters. supreme court issued a landmark ruling in the berlin decision which raises major concerns about the influence of dark money from wealthy right-wing donors. decision, which struck down a new century-old lot requiring individuals to demonstrate special need to carry a concealed weapon represent a in the

second amendment and the way we interpret it. this decision is championed by the gun lobby and big gun lobby players like the nra and some of the biggest contributors are billionaires like charles koch and leonard leo. leonard leo spent at least $950,000 to overturn affirmative action by paying the platside groups who wrote supporting bruce. and dark money groups backed by leonard leo also support tens of millions of dollars in the funds dedicated to dismantling voting rights and promoting gerrymandering in the wake of shelby county versus holder, which got it the voting rights act. the recent adoption of a formal ethics cod lacks the robust and for cyber -- mechaon surrounding justice thomas and his undisclosed vacations fund highlight the need for more accountability a there's been a lot of reporting on the influence of dark money as it relates to the court and specifically justices thomas and alito. for those who are not familiar,

can you discuss a little bit on the influence that the nra and dark money networks have had on justice gorsuchnd jusce vanaugh' confirmationss? >> i am not going to be abl in recent confirmations, there increase in money spent by outside groups, the nra and many others. ways, the story of the transformation of sement goes back much further than the recent confirmations of president trump'ssupreme court and begins with the 2008 versus heller on the 2022 berlin decision date --ruin decision that you mentioned. a very broad-based multiplatinum effort that involved a lot of expenditures of funds and develo and sort of a movement to change americans' understanding of the second member. the amendmentegulated militia being necessary to the keeping of the state. as securing a right consistent with or exercised in conjunction with militia service until the court fundamentally in the heller decision changed that. the nra i think across a lot of

different platforms, involving both money but also assuaging of various sorts, fundamentally changed the meaning of this key provision of the constitution. the court supercharged that moment. money is some but not the story of the transformation of the second moment and of the meaningtion in the last couple of decades. >> on second amendment inteti to impact stay and local gun revelations like those in florida? >> it ties the hands of government, whether we aretalking about the federal, state or local government, it ry difficult to successfully defend a firearms law against a challenge against the const constitution unless you can point to a specific type of regulation that looks like the regulation under review and in the case ofrearms and firearm violence looks different today historically, it's going to be virtually impossible ical antecedent that's going to satisfy this test. it's a test that seems kind of devised to lead it to the invalidation of most firearms laws. we will see what the cou there's also the cardinal case, two important gun cases.

rohini could involve some running back of the maximalist logic of bruin. it makes it difficult to enforce many for gun laws. a lot of folks are looking for, will this poor the supreme court back from the opinions that dark money donors are championing? >> it's hard to say.ink in some ways, the justices and donors are kind of rowing in the same direction. i'm not always convinced there's clean causal story of donors buying outcomes and decisions. i think certainly there's a relationship between the two. i think taking seriously the imperative imposing accountability mechanisms on the outcomes in jurisprudence. whether that's a direct result of curtailing funding or not. . thank you so much. we should be talking about ethicselates to people on the court right now but also loprocess and how dark money influences the united states senatorshat wi end up confirming the people that get in the courts. that's how we see a lot of that dark money also influence actually who sits on t

court versus the decisions they make was they are already on it. i yelled back. >> thank you outstanding questions and answers. i would now li busch, our distinguished colleague from st. louis.thank member angus king and vice ranking member ocasio-cortez for convening this important roundtable. we are here to tell some hard truths about the myth of impartiality of supreme court justices. many of my colleagues have -- the measly is it appalling that justice alito and his for the stop the steal movement in the days after january 6 after the 2020 election case? absolutely. and,á yes, the recordings of them that were released just yeing glimpse at their extremism. but th scandal we not just the latest example of the long-standing corruption and the ism of the right wing injustices. the has never been completely impartial. they were the dred scott be sanford

case, a case arising out of my district of missouri where the suprem decided black people cannot be considered american citizens. no scott court had four people who it. justices, i am calling the names, james moore daniel, john campbell, and john petrone. the u.s. supreme court went, was not impartial in 1927 when a value genesis justice oliver ash avowed eugen wrote the deciation of babies or in bauer v hard trick displayed quote an almost obsessive fo activity, unquote according to their own. justice, justice harry blackmun, in his dissent. this obsessionfbdouat

for five. i must thank ranking member raskin and vice ranking member very apt description, i think given the secrecy and corruption of far right justices that has i am a firm believer that sunlight is the best disinfectant and we need transparency. while republicans have ignored the today's hearing is critical for lead in the apparel can test theow extremist on the right are organizing across branches of government to enact wholesale, widespread policy violence. have you heard a project 20 35?

congresswoman, yes, i have -- a far right manifesto that has hundreds of pages of extremes policies to destroy the federal government as we know it. everything from a national abortion ban to department of education to mass firings of civil servants to be replaced by partisan sycophants. >> mu of this focus has been on agencies and the federal branch but it also implicates the judiciary. if the supreme court will back that's where people like dark money racketeer leonard leo stepien. the senate judiciary committee recently subpoenaed leonard leo as part of the supreme court ethics ican you explaination? >> i believe is under investigation for his central role not only in wing judicial nominees, which is not the direct target of inquiry

but for his involv to reward these judges and justices with luxuryvacation, private jet tripsacht voyages to indonesia and the like. investigative reporting has placed leo at e center of this billionaire justice matchmaking scheme. >> that's right. leo is the connective tissue between many of the ethics scandals on the supreme court dating all the way back to when he helped clarence thomas' confirmati and anita hill. let the record reflect that i still believe you, professor help. work to undermine democracy goes beyond the supreme court. he has used his dark money network to fund project 2025 to the tune of almost $50 million. the on the way the heritage foundation is able to promote their antidemocratic agenda is through funders like him. leo is reported to be be end chevron deference. can explain why that matters when it comes to harmful policies from a conservative administration? >>i am so glad you brought up

project 2025 and its intersection with the court. it is no coincidence that the collection of dark money entities, over 100 groups that have sponsored project 2025 and its sweeping plans to repeal the 20 installing installation of,, you know personnel and reorientation of ourhat have been behind the decades on court capture scheme. ways that my co-panelists have sort of touched on in terms of the attacks on the administrative state and in terms of install a almost monarchical vision of the executiv drawing on a vision called unit theory. it was advanced to support president bush's despicable torture program. project 202 will only be successful if the court allows it. we need a binding ethics. we need investigations into

justices samam clarence thomas, brett kavanaugh, and any others with a record of impropriety on the highest co reform. i would just love for people to make it make sense for me that justice alito cannot tell his wife o what to do with my body. make it make sense. thank you. >> thank you for your powerful questioning an . coming to the distinguished gentlelady from michigan for her much. thank you so much to ranking mece chair, ocasio-cortez. is so incredibly important because i get asked about this all the time in my district, i really do.i know the it the ethics crisis here in washington, d c. but do you know what they call it in detroit? may be any of you can guess? i don't know, ranking member raskin or vice chair ocasio-cortez, what do you think detroit calls it? do you think they call it a correction >> they probably call it a correction crisis. >> that's right. ll

an. >> we both talk to people. >> they don't even call or justin -- justice clarence thomashey call him corruption clarence. they awhen you look at the definition of corruption, i don't know if y'all looked it up, but it's like let me look at the difference between the definition. you got corruption, dishonest or fraududue in power, typically involving bribery. all, so we already know some of these. right? 20 years, no reporting collection, i'm going to call clarence, 20 years. all of a sudden, we find out 38 destinationns, 26 private jet flights, six helicopter flights, and multiple from republican billionaires, billionaire mega donors crow and others. and then youalito, what, some alaskan fish not corruption? this is not an ethics crisis. the american people knows what

it is. its corruption. itsbery. that's why they are yelling impeach them, remove them. any other person on any other job when it comes to any of my residents would be gonin an instant. and so, you know, for me, i think we should begin to call it what it is,atertrit5t-s.rouasfohq.al

u t3-waofq'mqme