Morning Wire - Targeting Supreme Court Justices | Saturday Extra

Episode Date: May 6, 2023

A series of recent reports have alleged improprieties against Supreme Court Justices, particularly Clarence Thomas. Court critics allege a failure to disclose financial information and conflicts of interests, while defenders of the court say this is a biased effort to intimidate the conservative-majority court. We speak with Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network and author of “Justice on Trial: the Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court,” about the string of allegations against the justices.   Birch Gold: No-Cost, No-Obligation FREE Information Kit Text “WIRE"" to 989898 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Don't miss the Devil Wears Prada 2 in theaters. Merrill Street, Ann Hathaway, Emily Blunt, and Stanley Tucci are back. In light of the recent scandal, I'm here to restore your credibility. I did not hire you, and all I need to do is bide my time until you fail. On May 1st, icons. I'm going to make something of this job. Rain. Be the bridges I burn.

Night my way. Forever. I just love my job. Get tickets now. The Devil Wears Prada 2 in theaters May 1st. Directed by David Frankel. A series of recent reports by Legacy. media outlets have alleged improprieties against Supreme Court justices, particularly those on the right.

Court critics paint a picture of failure to disclose financial information and conflicts of interests, while defenders of the court say this is part of a larger coordinated effort to undermine and intimidate the conservative majority court. In this episode, we talk with Kerry Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network and the author of Justice on trial, the Kavanaugh confirmation and the future of the Supreme Court, about the string of allegations against the justices. It's Saturday, May 6th, and this is an extra edition of Morning Wire. Joining us now to discuss the flood of allegations against the Supreme Court is Carrie Severino.

Hi, Gary. So first, Daily Wire investigative reporter Luke Roziak just published a report on Justice Sotomayor. Roziac reports that she did not recuse herself from multiple cases involving a book publisher, Penguin Random House, who was paying her a lot of money, actually, over $3 million. dollars. Justice Breyer did recuse himself in a similar situation despite receiving a lot less in payments. What do you make of that claim? So Justice Breyer, in that case, he also owned stock in addition to the publishing agreements, but I think this points out just the incredible inconsistency we're seeing in the reporting on these and the focus, because it may not be against the current ethical rules for Justice

Sotomayor to have sat on that case. Nonetheless, it creates an appearance of impropriety, which is all that the liberals are able to hang their hat on for all these other things. Oh my goodness, that creates much more of an appearance of impropriety than someone going on a law school summer program as every other justice on the court has done. Or the fact that Justice Thomas has a friend who is wealthy, you know, Justice Breyer has friends and even his own wife, very, very wealthy. There's nothing wrong with that. They're selectively doing it. I think that's why it takes your work to uncover the fact that, hey, there are liberal justices doing things that might raise eyebrows too because it's been so selectively reported on the left. Now, I don't think that her sitting on it even changed the outcome in the case,

but what's key here is it's being so pressed on when a conservative does it, again, even though I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that they think that Justice Thomas has ever changed a vote or that any justice has changed their behavior on the court from it, they're trying to create an appearance of impropriety. And there's stuff staring you right in the face if you wanted to create an appearance of propriety for Justice Sotomay or another's. So you once clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, what do you make of ProPublica's exposés on Justice Thomas? Do they have merit? These are more of the same attacks on Thomas that we have seen for the last 30 years. They absolutely have no merit. And what's more, they're clearly aimed at trying to harass and

intimidate the justices. Now, Justice Thomas is, I think, uniquely among the court, someone I don't think will move his votes as a result of this. But they just have had a vendetta against him for 30 years. As he put it, he's the wrong black man. He's the black man who's a conservative. And he is raising the ire of the left because he's the intellectual heavyweight on the court right now, leading an originalist court. So they're trying to attack him. And I think they're trying to send a message to the other justices that if you continue to be faithful to the Constitution, above all else, this is what we'll have coming for you as well. Now, the latest allegation published by ProPublicas that Harlan Crow, a close friend of Clarence Thomas,

paid for a year of tuition for the grand nephew of the Justice. Can you explain what this allegation is? Yeah, this is outrageous because what happened here is Harlan Crow is being taken to task for trying to help a young black man who is Justice Thomas's great nephew to attend school. For those who are familiar with Justice Thomas's story, his father abandoned him and his siblings as a child, his grandparents' raised. him. And Justice Thomas had a great nephew who was in a similarly difficult situation. So for years, over a decade, he and his wife were trying to help out with this great nephew of theirs, trying to help him go to school. And he had recently moved back to Savannah. Harlan Crow said, here, there's a school. I think that would be really good for him. Let me pay for a year of tuition because I want

to be able to help him out. So this is outrageous that trying to assist this young man is being pointed out somehow this is a bad thing. This should be celebrated. This should be applauded that Harlan Crow is trying to assist him. This isn't a favor and then Justice Thomas will vote his way in the case. He has no issues before the court. This is someone who's a personal friend and simply wants to do something to honor this great Supreme Court justice and to help him help this young man. Paying for the tuition of a grand nephew, is this even reportable under the current rules? Not at all. So Justice Thomas did everything exactly correct. If this, had been his son, perhaps it would have been reportable, but it is not, is a grand nephew,

and someone who was not his dependent at the time is not reportable. So this is really what's going on here is not that any actual rules have been violated because they haven't. It's, they're trying to dig and go on fishing expeditions, trying to find things that they can make look nefarious in some way. They're inventing new ethical standards that neither Justice Thomas nor any of the other justices is subject to, and then trying to selectively apply them to the conservative justices. Justice Thomas, I think, is the chief target of their outrage, but it's been Justice Gorsuch, Justice Alito, Chief Justice Roberts. They've been going down the line trying to create these faux controversies about things that

the justices have done exactly correctly. And it's ultimately because what they're trying to do is intimidate the conservative members of the court. One of the questions that's being raised is the idea of this seemingly coordinated effort right now against the Supreme Court. This clearly focus by many left-leaning in legacy media outlets on the justices. Is this indeed coordination or just coincidence? It's no coincidence, I think, that you're seeing all of these attacks simultaneously. What I think would be much more interesting than trying to go through with a fine-tooth comb every financial record is trying to figure out who is funding all of these things. Again, it's behavior that all of the justices are engaging in that somehow being tried to look bad

for the conservative justices. For example, there was a piece of, about law schools that have justices come and speak at their, often their summer programs that tend to be in other countries. So one, the Justice Gorsuch was at was in Iceland. There are other ones that justices have gone to, you know, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor were in we're in Lisbon or we're in Hawaii. This is not uncommon for schools to do this, but then it's presented as if somehow it's improper if it's a conservative justice doing it and they leave out the fact that this is actually a very common practice. That type of thing has been repeated over and over, has been coordinated with Democrats on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate who then hold a hearing

this week trying to argue for more ethics oversight being needed by Congress. They would love to have the Supreme Court somehow under their thumb and have some way to try to selectively remove justices from cases. And I think that's what the end goal here is. And this is why you're seeing such a coordinated attack from the left in the media and in Democratic politicians. Well, the autonomy of the court is obviously crucial to the balance of power, so important stuff. Kerry, thanks so much for joining us. That was Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network and author of Justice on Trial. And this has been an extra edition of Morning Wire.