>> later this afternoon house lawmakers will work on legislation honoring the 75th anniversary of u.s.-israel relations and urgg other countries to normalize relations with israel as well. members are also expected to consider several f.c.c.-related bills with votes at 6:30 eastern. the house is now in recess. when lawmakers return, we'll have live coverage here on c-span. >> order your copy of the 118th congressional directly now available at c-spanshop.org. it's your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member and important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors. scan the code at the right to order your copy today or go to c-spanshop.org. it's $29.95 plus shipping and handling and every purchase helps support our nonprofit

operations. we welcome back to e program ellie was with -- was an author and journalist. thanks for coming back to the program. guest: thanks for having me. host: your writings have indicated over the last couple of we tick weeks, that you have been rep watching the supreme court, the actual activities of the justices themselves. what have you learned? guest: having nine unelected, unaccountable grand wizards in charge of policing themselves doesn't work out very well. they are incapable of policing themselves and we saw that not just through the last couple of weeks with the rolling ethical disaster that is clarence thomas but now we are seeing it this morning again with just as neil gorsuch based on the most recent political reporting. host: this is the headline from

politico -- for those who haven't read it yet, encapsulate that for us. guest: one of the top 100 law firms in the country, the seat of their litigation department bought property that neil gorsuch had been trying to sell for two years. they bought the property nine days after gorsuch was confirmed to the supreme court. right there, you have the appearance of impropriety. clarence thomas has been running this thing like i don't know nothing about birthing no babies. he is acting like he is too stupid to understand what he was supposed to disclose on his financial disclosure forms. gorsuch is different. he disclosed the sale and disclosed that he made money off of the sale but he didn't

disclose who bought the property. that key information that the ceo of a litigation department that regularly has business in front of the court, gorsuch left that field blank. it's a good indication that gorsuch knew that he had to disclose something, knew there was an ethical concern with the disclosure and decided to leave it blank. on the others, the ceo is a man named brian duffy. he claims he didn't know he was buying the property from gorsuch. if you believe that, ok. when he found out that he bought the property from the supreme court justice, he had to submit his sale through his law firm ethics committee for conflicts of interest in impropriety hands like that. the guy who brought the property from the supreme court justice had to submit to some level of ethical scrutiny over the sale but the supreme court justice

who sold it to him, he left that part out. host: as far as what rules the supreme court has for disclosure , they say it was the rule back then until the recent updates and changes we had, what do you make of that argument? guest: it's a really poor argument. section five, 13104 is the long-term federal disclosure statute that applies to federal judges. the idea that you have to disclose land sales is not new. that is not a heightened level of the scrutiny that has come up only in the modern europe. it has been pretty standard and pretty obvious that you need to disclose who is buying your property or who is buying your mother's house and paying property taxes on it. that is not new. the argument has failed on a

more intellectual level. we are dealing with supreme court justices. we are dealing with people who will say with certainty whether a pregnant person has a right to their own body and say with certainty how many guns a shooter is allowed to have, who will say with certainty whether a person can be sentenced to die. and yet these nine people are acting like they can understand the disclosure arm and it's too confusing and they're not sure what they are supposed to do? , on, who is that for and who believes that? either these people can fill out a form where they are hiding something. host: senator durbin is asked justice roberts to come to the hill to testify on this matter to give his take on ethics issues. whether he will come or not is yet to be determined. what is his role in all of this is for is clearing up what's been going on over the last few

weeks and how far he should take it and how for the discussion goes that he should have on ethics? guest: they are acting like they need to go out over a beer. there needs to be congressional legislation to oversee the supreme court on the issue of ethics. there has been legislation proposed by congressman hank johnson of georgia cosponsored by senator chris murphy of connecticut to impose ethics rules on the supreme court. why is that not the discussion we are having as opposed to durbin asking john roberts to come by and talk this out. there is no official power for chief justice roberts. he doesn't have the authority to remove or punish a supreme court justice. constitutionally, only impeachment can remove a supreme court justice. but roberts is in the position

where he could promulgate ethics rules for his own court. if justices do not follow those ethics rules, he would at least be in the position to call them out, to use the power of the pulpit, use the power of the press to say this is wrong, please stop it. that's not an official power but i think it would matter to certain people if john roberts got up in front of a microphone and said the stuff we have learned in the stuff we've learned is unacceptable and we cannot have it here at the supreme court. that would mean something to somebody. roberts won't do that. host: justice thomas or just is gorsuch, is it still in your mind to the appearance of wrongdoing or was there actual wrongdoing? guest: figuring out the quid pro quo is the difficult part.

in the gorsuch situation, one of their cases was a big obama climate change case where near gorsuch to paste -- where neil gorsuch took a strident position against the obama administration with the legal position. did he do that because somebody bought his property? i can say that. he is legitimately an extremist. clarence thomas similarly, there are extremist things thomas believes that i don't think he gets paid for. the subtlety here, you have to understand how the supreme court decisions are made. you don't have to buy a supreme court justice his vote. you don't have to get to that level to make good on your investment in their property. all you need to buy is a lie. one light here are there in a

majority opinion can dramatically shift and shape the law for future generations. you need to buy a negative, you need to buy them deciding account on one ground as opposed to another. if they decide on your favor on point a that might be more helpful. that's where you might see the effect of some of the financial influence. that effect is also fundamentally very difficult to prove to anybody's satisfaction because his part to make the line in the sands to say that's what they paid for. you can't really do that. host: the justice correspondent for the nation's with us and if you want to ask him a question, you can call in on these numbers.

our first call is from texas, independent line. good morning, go ahead. caller: changing the subject a little bit, do you think hunter biden is a perfect poster boy for white privilege? guest: excuse me? we could be talking about how the nine -- two of the nine most powerful people in the country are allegedly on the take from rich republican donors but you want to talk about whether or not the president's son is an example of white privilege? sure, yeah. host: gloria, democrats line, staten island, new york. caller: yes, i want to talk about judge -- justice thomas. i think he should be set down because he's got a record that

goes back a long ways as far as doing the wrong thing when he accused the lady of inappropriately touching him and he was found not guilty. he is guilty and he got this normal function to be let off. guest: you are referring to the anita hill allegations. thomas found that they did not care, that's to the difference. . the senate didn't care about the anita hill allegations. just like the senate that return kavanaugh did not care about his accusations. that is a deeper rock at the heart of air system. -- of our system where we are willing to not just elevate and promote but idolize men who are

under these kinds of allegations. that's the deeper rot. in terms of stepping down, if he had dignity, he probably would. he is facing cause of impropriety. there was a democratic congress and it was unlikely to the democrats would actually impeach him or they didn't want to go through that process. the reputation of the court should matter than any individual on the court. the other thing about thomas's people need to remember why he got his job. thomas replaced thurgood marshall in 1991 when he retired. he didn't die. thurgood marshall didn't die

until 1993, 2 weeks after bill clinton was sworn in as president. thurgood marshall was alive but because he was sick and didn't think he could do the job at the level the supreme court requires , he resigned and under a republican administration was replaced by a republican nominee because of the about the institution of the court was more important than his own personal political and ideological beliefs. that is the spirit that clarence thomas denigrates with his continued presence on the board. -- on the court. host: let me ask you about justice alito when it came to the abortion drug case last week. i will read you last sentence on this --

there is more there but elaborate on that. guest: alito was mad and that to pigeon -- in that decision. he called out three of the four women who were on the court by name including amy coney barrett from his own party and accusing them of hypocrisy because of the shadow docket. alito likes to use the shadow docket which is an emergency appeals process to uphold republican decisions from lower courts, even those that will likely over get -- and overturned eventually. in this case, the use the shadow docket to take down a conservative opinion from a lower court and suddenly, he is mad about that. he said you cannot use the

shadow document that way but this way. it was actually funny watching alito convolute himself to make this argument. the upshot he is trying to get of here is that he doesn't mean if he takes a position on the case, even in the sentence you read, he is taking a position on the case and taking a position that the difference being approved for seven weeks after conception versus 10 weeks causes no real harm. it's the kind of analysis you make when you are a man and you think babies are brought by the stork. the difference between seven weeks and 10 weeks is significant for people were not planning on getting pregnant in the first place. thus, many of them don't know they are within six weeks of becoming pregnant. then it comes time to figure out what to do and whether they want to terminate their pregnancy.

it is truly important as far as the definition of 7-10 weeks especially if you're a victim of sexual crime. alito washed that away. that whether or not he ultimately upholds or denies that the conservative argument from the lower court to ban the abortion pill is so bad on just, technical grounds. it's just on the legal reasoning of the opinion. it is one of the more ridiculous things i have seen. i wouldn't be surprised if a justice like sam alito was able

to overrule the lower court opinion just honest legal stupidity alone regardless of what he thinks about the larger issue. host: this is from larry and south dakota -- republican line. caller: i'm looking at this and my father was a commander at pearl harbor. one of the things he told me was that lying will destroy us. liars will destroy us. and i looked at him and i said yeah liars with the worst. used to dish he always tried to do the best he was doing and you would think the top people in this country would not be liars. you would think they would be straightforward. they would do the best thing they can and lying would not be part of it.

i know for fact there are two layers of a new supreme court, kavanaugh was one of them. that guy live through his whole confirmation. those women were right. i don't know about other liars but i know there are two. host: that's larry and south dakota. how do you know for sure? are you there? caller: i know that they were doing when i was 17 or 18 and they were not treating women with the greatest of respect. host: ok, go ahead. caller: one guest: of the things that always gets me about the way the conservative party has closed ranks around kavanaugh and thomas and these people accused of sexual misconduct is that there are tons of

republican justices who they could promote supreme court who would rule just like tongues and you without any of the bays and the allegations's conduct in the past -- and the misconduct they have had in the past. they would love more -- no more than the opportunity to rule like clarence thomas for the next 30 years. the fact that they have gone with these two accused sexual prisoners to me says something -- sexual predator says something deep about the conservative legal movement as opposed to just what their legal political ideology is. you can have the ideology from hundreds of people, but to chosen to make the standard error these two guys who been accused of some of the worst conduct we can.

ned that the abortion ruling goes back to lower courts, there are two -- they were too independent so what is that mean? guest: as of now, the abortion pill is legal in all the places it was legal before this. the red states that have taken draconian antiabortion laws, the states that had taken a more progressive approach, you can get it there. that status quo will be in force until at least the fifth circuit decides on the abortion pill in the context of a full hearing. the district court, a nutty trump appointee judge made this radicular ruling to ban the abortion pill in addition on an emergency appeal and said part of the ruling stands. the supreme court on the

emergency appeal said all of the ruling goes away. now we get to the actual full hearing of lawyers and briefs and arguments about this whack a doodle theory they are using to come after the abortion pill. it was approved by the fda in the year 2000. the argument that you can sue the fda 27 years later just bonkers. now we will have to have a full hearing on the fifth circuit about that and i will take place over the next few months and we will see what they decide. it will likely be a terrible decision because that's what conservatives do. this circuit is the most conservative judicial circuit in the country. the fifth circuit is the newsmax of the judicial situation. they will make a harder ruling in one way or another and that

will be immediately appealed to the supreme court. we are looking at some time maybe this time next year, maybe october 2024 before the supreme court actually gets around to hearing the full case and providing clarity to the situation. confusion is part of the point. one of the things activists are trying to do is to add confusion and fear into the system so that people don't even know what they do and do not have a legal right to do. having the law be confused actually works in favor of what the birther's are trying to do and their allies in the judicial system are trying to do. host: mark in austin, texas,

democrats line. . caller: good morning. host: you're on with our guest, go ahead. caller: i want to ask our guest -- i understand what he saying about clarence thomas and you can look at it some things he has done i want to ask the desk -- i want to ask the guest question. the question is, want to know why there is no black bank in the united states of america. kenny is that question to host: there are black banks. guest: there are black banks. maybe i'm not the right person to ask but i believe there are black owned banks. you've got to look for them little bit more and you have to

search for black-owned businesses harder than others. there are some right here in new york city. i'm not sure where that question was going but i think the way to roll it back into what we are talking about is one of the things that clarence thomas has been arguing is that people are coming after him because he's black and conservative. he has this giant persecution complex because he's black and conservative, liberals have always hated him as far as own version -- personal heat those. there are other black conservatives out there lawyers and judges out there who believe many of the things thomas believes that haven't been accused of sexually assaulting assistance.

some are not going on world globetrotting trips with nazis and they are not selling their mother's house and not telling anybody about it there are tons of black conservatives who believes what thomas believes and don't do what tom was does. i just want more people to remember that thomas is not the only one. there are others who are better at it. host: i want to shift to another legal matter, the settlement of the dominion law system -- dominion voting system and fox news. what did you think of that case? guest: that's with the system is designed to do. the legal system is not trying to achieve justice, we had the personal system for that. it's going to achieve money and if you believe that money is the

accountability, then great. if you believe money is accountability, that's the case. you leave accountability and believe there us -- there is something more punishing than just financial disclosure, the law you would be abby is the county of news corp.. the settlement was only going to get to a monetary settlement. the monetary settlement is stiff. i've said before online is a lawyer, i would tell them to take the money. we are talking that a company that was bought by private equity five years ago for $38 million. the private ak people thousand 50% return there and is

capitalist like those numbers. if i was there lawyer, i would've told dominion to take that money but i'm not there lawyer and what i'm interested in is justice. that's why i was disappointed that dominion to the settlement when they had so much great but i understand. the system is designed mainly to produce financial payouts as opposed to produce real accountability. host: what you said about the civil cases overall, i want to ask you about the jury section -- selection today in the case against president trump which extends back several years a what's the significance that the jury selection is good. guest: let's go, this a long-term allegation against donald trump. this is the longest lawsuit allowed to be prosecuted because of important law passed in new

york state called the adult survivors act. it narrowly 8 -- aged carols case because of seven years. we see this whereby this and the victim is ready to come forward and tell the story, that's an indication that has lapsed. new york passed a special one year only law that will have the survivors assist dish of sexual assault one year and wish to bring their claims. it's the same thing for children a while back. it resulted in a ton of lawsuits. this lawsuit was brought under the new york exception lawton that's why we are getting to the jury selection today. this trial will be an opportunity to use donald trump's words against him. people are familiar with the fact that one of the reasons why

trump is in trouble in georgia is because people have gotten to the spake. people forget, we got trump on tape on the access hollywood tape describing exactly what type of assault the woman described in the 1990's. the judge already ruled it will be relevant and the jurors will be able to hear that tape. that is going to be an important trial gordon robert to to eventually hold him accountable in these charges. he will not personally appear in court and doesn't have to because it's a civil suit. there is no threat of jail time. this is a defamation suit on a civil case. there is still the chance that

the truth will come out through this trial that is what i hope for. host: our independent line in idaho. caller: how are you doing? eli, you are extremely refreshing. i like the fact that when you get call, you don't get the standard no matter how ridiculous the question is. thanks for your question. you let them know how you feel. my question concerns abc news. there are real fundamental rules to them -- to avoid the stuff we run to in court. just like a corporation, you have these things to line up first. that will take a week. clarence's wife, some of the

stuff she was doing. maybe get some sort of amendment or boat to put some power back into roberts and the chief justice. they should be able to terminate you. host: that's vince and idaho. guest: thank you for your question. there is a bill in congress right now by hank johnson and chris murphy trying to bring ethical strictures to the supreme court. call your most likely republican congressman in idaho. call them and say why are you supporting hank johnson and chris murphy's bill? i am old, there was a time when we could all agree about ethics.

wherever you were in the political divide, you could agree that there needs to be ethics in our public officials. the kind of behavior that thomas and gorsuch are accused of wood get public employees and any other level of government in really deep trouble. the basic lack of disclosure would get most government officials and most institutions in serious trouble. who has the authority to punish a supreme court justice and suspend them for six months. the answer is nobody. nobody can do that. don't call me, call your

congressman, call your senator, there are people in congress now who understand how important ethics are. they are in the minority and we need to get more people more focused on ethics. if you live in illinois, called dick durbin and say chaired the judiciary committee and don't invite john roberts over 40, pass a bill. -- over four t, pass a bill and that's how you will get actual scriptures on ethics assigned to these unaccountable people. host: let's hear from florida, democrats line. caller: good morning, can you hear me? it's just which is true post on twitter. i love you and i love when you comment.

i just wanted to ask since you know so much about scotus, how do we make sure that this extremism majority does not happen again? i feel like we use our nominated judges or however we go about getting our scotus, i feel like people like gorsuch and kavanaugh have used it as a payback. how do we make sure that doesn't happen? do we do it with ethics with clarence and call our congress and our senators to hold them accountable? keep doing what you do. guest: thank you so much. my solution for extremism