TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2025-08-21 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00027195

SCOTUS LOSS OF ALL CREDIBILITY MeidasTouch-BTC: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas referred to Justice Department PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekwc9_5ZFCo Peter Burgess COMMENTARY Peter Burgess
🚨 Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas referred to Justice Department Brian Tyler Cohen Aug 9, 2024 3.03M subscribers Democracy Watch with Marc Elias Democracy Watch episode 166: Marc Elias discusses Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' referral to the Justice Department. SIGN UP: https://www.democracydocket.com/btc-s... Order my new book SHAMELESS: https://www.harpercollins.com/pages/s... Subscribe for more and follow me here: YouTube (español): / @briantylercohenespanol Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/36UvEHs Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0066rKC... Twitter: / briantylercohen Instagram: / briantylercohen Facebook: / briantylercohen Patreon: / briantylercohen Newsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-up/ TikTok: / briantylercohen Suit by JB Clothiers: https://jbclothiers.com/btc Transcript 0:00 this is democracy watch so Mark Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has just been referred to the justice department for his failure to disclose gifts and income as required by the ethics and Government Act is this enough of a predicate to open some type of criminal investigation into the Supreme Court justice so we've talked a lot on this series about how there are two tiers of Justice in this country right I have complained over and over again as you have that Donald Trump despite all of his whining is actually gotten treated much better by the criminal justice system than anyone else and so you know if you were a regular runof-the-mill federal employee who repeatedly failed to disclose under penalty of perjury which is how you fill out these forms you actually signed the forms under and it says under penalty of perjury um if you had a federal employee who filled out these forms as they do who repeatedly omitted not just small gifts but gifts that were in the millions of 1:01 and particularly if the person giving the gifts had business before the agency yeah it would be enough at least for An Inspector General investigation and potentially a criminal investigation but we do live in a in a system of two tiers of justice and we do live in a system in which the Donald Trumps of the world do get to be in contempt of court and don't get in trouble they get presidential immunity they get delays upon delays upon delays so do I believe that there will be a criminal investigation of a Justice of the Supreme Court no I don't and that is the reality of you know the and it's the bitter irony that when you hear the powerful complain that they are being held to a different standard I shake my head and say yes you are but not the way you think right well what really stands out here is that the Senate actually found that Justice Thomas accepted even more undisclosed luxury travel sponsored by Haron Crow this time uh a a private jet flight from Hawaii to New Zealand we did an episode 2:01 just a few weeks ago about Justice Thomas having to amend his financial disclosures because he neglected to include major gifts so could there still be more out there after all of this media scrutiny yeah I mean look I you know we say all of this media scrutiny but honestly the scrutiny here has largely been and kudos to them for doing this but it has largely not been by the by the uh the news outlets that cover the Supreme Court right I mean that's the irony right there actually it's been sort of journalists investigative journalists and journalists who care about good government who have been leading the charge here but you know the the problem with the Supreme Court is that unlike members of Congress where there are a score of journalists who are who are pouring over everything they do to try to see if there's a misstep unlike the presidential campaigns or Governors where there are you know press cores that just cover them day in day out a lot of the the Supreme Court uh you know media media coverage is 3:00 basically like just taking what the Supreme Court says and then translating into English people they're not actually covering the justices of the court in a critical fashion and I think that that has to change so is it possible that there is more out there well of course there's possible there's more out there because because Brian it's been months and months where each time we say well is it's possible there's more out there there's a lot more out there it's not like they are finding it's not like they're finding a couple of things here and there they're finding major major they're breaking major major stor yeah well what kind of legislation then would actually serve as a proper deterrent for this kind of behavior look I think a few things I mean the first thing is that we need to reorient our our our um our system of government that we expect that um justices on the Supreme Court will be held to a higher standard than career civil servants not a lower standard right that's number one number two we need a we need reforms to the law that make it explicitly clear 4:01 that if you fail to properly uh disclose gifts that that will be treated seriously like that is not going to be a slap on the wrist we also need to ban those gifts like I mean the truth is I couldn't buy a member of the house or the senate or someone in the executive branch I couldn't buy them a $100 bottle of wine they'd have to pay for it or return it why on Earth are Supreme Court Justices Left Right middle across the Spectrum why are they accepting gifts why are they accepting any of these gifts right I mean if you look at the disclosures of what of what a hill staffer or an executive branch staffer puts on their fors around gifts it's like I had a wedding and someone bought me a table setting like it's not these kind of lavish gifts so these need these need to be banned and then we need to look seriously at Supreme Court reform more generally not just an Ethics code around it but you know they they they have become 5:00 impervious uh to any kind of accountability by by Congress you know when I you and I talked about this in an episode long time ago um it felt like a long time ago the the Senate asked the Chief Justice to come and explain some of this stuff and he turned down the offer and at the time I said boy this is a real mistake on the part of the chief's standpoint like like you are not above Congressional congressional oversight no one's above oversight by the other branches so we need to reset a culture here of oversight both by Congress and the executive branch of the Supreme Court Supreme Court obviously has oversight of basically everything else so I I think that that's really important well not only impervious but actually hostile I believe it was Neil Gorsuch who came out on TV just a few days ago and amid these calls for court reform he he offered be careful what do you make of that boy I got to tell you I saw that and I was very surprised I mean you know Justice Gorsuch and I don't agree on a lot philosophically but actually I normally consider him to be 6:00 one of the justices that has a pretty even judicial temper you know which is a good thing in a justice but boy I I I think saying something like that which can be open to the interpretation that what he means by be careful is be careful because we you know if Congress goes too far maybe we the Supreme Court will exact some retribution that is just the furthest thing from what a Justice should be allowing to be insinuated I'm not saying that that's how he meant it but he should be more careful with his words like he should not be saying things that can be construed that way whether he intended it or not if by be careful he means be careful in going too far because you will undermine public confidence in the Supreme Court well my message to him my message to him is that you guys have done that that's not you know like you guys have done that and if by be careful he says be careful because you you may wind up um uh winding up with uh a bad a bad set of policy decisions my answer to them is that's congress's job not yours right it's the job of Congress Congress created this 7:00 the the the nine justices uh uh and and can create 12 or create three like that's not the job of the Supreme Court Justice to decide where what what the right reforms are that is actually left to the legislative power in Congress right right and it shouldn't be it shouldn't be on us right here saying that it is uh that that it is not on the Supreme Court to be able to have full autonomy in a system of checks and balances but yeah and it's not and and and and you know going back to a few common things themes here you know it is simply not appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to act in a way that suggests even the appearance you know they are supposed to be held to an appearance standard it is not appropriate for Supreme Court Justice to say or do things that give the appearance that that they are anything but impartial and when you have the flag controversy with with Alo that is certainly giving that appearance when you have the uh uh justice Thomas's wife involved uh politically as she was around January 6 and then he doesn't 8:02 refuse himself that is giving an appearance that you don't want to be given when you have the Chief Justice refusing to meet with the Senate voluntarily that gives an appearance what nor Neil Gorsuch said here gives an appearance so I just I I don't understand honestly and I know you're some of your some of the viewers are going to be writing comments now like Mark you're totally naive don't you I understand right I don't understand why the conservative justices on the court seem to constantly misread how to act in a way that instills confidence even at a time especially at a time where their rulings are not inspiring confidence of impartiality well you know I I think if if I can offer this I think that it's not really about that for them anymore and in the same way that the Republican party is not really worried about the Optics of what they're doing and you have Donald Trump out there saying that he has enough votes because he's so certain that there's going to be people in the county election official uh position that are going to delay or block certification on his behalf the 9:01 veil is lifted and they're not bothering to worry about about Optics or good governance it is just about the ultimate goal that was behind all of this that proved that all of their their slogans were just the the empty veneer is that it's just about consolidating power and keeping power for themselves once they actually get it and so that's why you have these Supreme Court Justices who have given up all pretense of pretending that they are focused on following the rules um and even when pushed on it will come out and say be careful and give the impression that they're offering a threat to those who are looking to take some of that power back power that they're not entitled to in the first place but this is a rot that has pervaded the entirety of the Republican party starting with Donald Trump going over to these Supreme Court Justices who who don't even seem to care anymore who are who are literally flying Flags outside of all of their homes that prove where their political allegiances lie and it's going all the way down to these state legislators and County board members and election officials who are just saying outright in in broad 10:01 daylight that uh that that they're not interested in following the law or abiding by their OES to the Constitution they are just there to consolidate power for the Republican party and nothing more yeah and I look I think that that this is an issue in which not only has uh the media that covers the Supreme Court not done a service to the country but frankly the legal establishment either also hasn't either because honestly lawyers like me and others have been too slow to adop to come to the place that frankly non- lawyers like you have been at I mean if you look at how long it took President Biden to adopt reforms that is the reflection of the fact that he is a lawyer and and I think for many of us it was harder for us to get to the place of drawing the connections that you as a non- lawyer saw as very obvious and I think that this last term I mean just speaking for myself this last Supreme Court term and particularly the immunity ruling but not just the immunity the 14th Amendment ruling the time the way in which the time the 11:01 schedules were being seemingly gamed with you know it just you could not you I could no longer square a any ideology an originalism you know uh textualism ideologies I don't even agree with I couldn't Square them with what we were seeing and I think that for me and probably for President Biden and others this last term was really the last STW yeah and which which makes total sense because that's when the veil was completely lifted but but uh don't sell yourself short youve been you know on the front lines for democracy stronger than anybody else uh in in the legal establishment uh that any of us have seen so uh to that point then for those watching right now to support the invaluable work that Mark and his team are doing in the courts please make sure to sign up for democracy. I'll put the link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video I'm Brian teller Cohen I'm Mark Elias this is democracy [Music] watch oh

SITE COUNT