The Chris Cuomo Project - The Supreme Court: How To Fix It

Episode Date: July 6, 2023

Chris Cuomo takes a deep look into the issues plaguing the Supreme Court, including the process by which judges are appointed, and offers up practical solutions that could lead to productive court reform. Follow and subscribe to The Chris Cuomo Project on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Do we have a problem with the Supreme Court? Yes. Can it be fixed? Yes. In full? I'm not sure, but I can take you through what the law is, what the policies are, but most importantly, what the problems are. And here's my take.

The number one problem can absolutely be fixed. It's not about having the ability. It's about whether or not we have the will. Listen, if you know anything about me, you know I've been doing AG1 for over five years, okay? Why? Well, because I heard about it just as I was looking at all of these white and translucent brown bottles in my life. Had to be a dozen of them, okay? Which vitamins I took with when, with food, in the morning, at night. And it was making it so that I didn't even want to deal with it anymore.

Then I discovered AG1. One scoop, one glass of water. I like it warm. Glug, glug, glug. Boom. Done for the day. Doesn't upset my stomach, and it has everything. And by the way, you take AG1, it is a hell of a lot more cost effective than doing these things separately. Trust me,

okay? It will give you a better way to elevate your baseline health, all right? AG1 is therefore the supplement that I trust to provide the support my body needs every day. And that's why they've been a longtime partner. If you want to take ownership of your health, it starts with AG-1. Try AG-1, get a free one-year supply of vitamin D3K2. Why not just D3? Combinations matter for absorption. And you'll get five free AG1 travel packs. Very cool, because you can't get through the TSA otherwise.

Go to drinkag1.com CCP. That's drinkag1.com slash CCP. Check it out. Take control of your health. Check it out. Take control of your health. We don't fake the funk here. And here's the real talk. Over 40 years of age, 52% of us experience some kind of ED between the ages of 40 and 70. I know it's taboo. It's embarrassing, but it shouldn't be. Thankfully, we now have HIMS and it's changing the vibe by providing affordable access to ED treatment. And it's all online. HIMS is changing men's health care. Why? Because it's giving you access to affordable and discreet sexual health treatments. And you do it right from your couch. HIMS provides access to clinically proven generic alternatives to Viagra or Cialis or whatever.

And it's up to like 95% cheaper. And there are options as low as two bucks a dose. HIMS has hundreds of thousands of trusted subscribers. So if ED is getting you down, it's time to pick it up. Start your free online visit today at HIMS.com slash CCP. H-I-M-S dot com slash CCP.

And you will get personalized ED treatment options. HIMS.com slash CCP. Prescriptions? You need an online consultation with a healthcare provider, and they will determine if appropriate. Restrictions apply. You see the website, you'll get details and important safety information.

You're going to need a subscription. It's required. Plus, price is going to vary based on product and subscription plan. I'm Chris Cuomo. Thank you for joining me for another episode of The Chris Cuomo Project, where I am breaking down some of the sticky stuff that's

troubling us in our society. Appreciate you following, subscribing, being a critical thinker, being a free agent, wearing your independence by getting your merch, but also by getting away from the parties. Because if you're going to be a critical thinker, you can't just be a pack animal and a lemming that just follows people because that's your team, okay? And that takes us to the Supreme Court. We have several obvious issues, okay, in no particular order. But I'll put the one that matters to me last. One, they can be there forever. Two, they don't have to tell us enough about what conflicts

and financial arrangements that they have. about what conflicts and financial arrangements that they have. And three, there is this fugazi fallacy that they are above politics and never have to give any indication of how they feel about anything, even when confronting the Senate body that is supposed to give advice and consent to the president's nominee choice? How do they do that when they don't know a damn thing about the people? Now, the real answer to that last point is they do know, and they know what they want, and they know what they like, and both sides play this game, which is why we see it play

out the same way every time somebody new is selected. So much so that when these men and women get on the court, they vote with the party's interests that put them there so often that when they don't, you know them by name. Now, here's what we know. SCOTUS is an easy legal walk for you, okay? You just Google Article 3, Section 1. Now, it's very interesting. The Constitution only creates in and of itself the Supreme Court. Did you know that?

The Constitution gives Congress the ability to create all lower courts. It's interesting. Why does the president get to nominate and there fundamentally select a Supreme Court judge? Why wouldn't that have been left to the body? Hamilton made a very interesting case in the Articles of Confederation. One man's perspective is better than a body's because of the varied interests.

You know, it reminds me of the joke, what is a zebra? A horse made by committee. So Hamilton believed that it was better to have the fruit of one mind, but you got to question that. Really, with something as important as a Supreme Court justice. Now, another point.

Why are there only nine? That's not in the Constitution. Ah. So there is an ability to control. Where'd that come from? Well, just like FDR spooked Congress, really both houses, with wanting to limit how many terms a president could have as he went for four. He also tried to pack the court, which also spooked his own party. So they were able to put a restriction in place. Now, remember this. The Supreme court is unique in that it is the ultimate form of reviewing laws treaties in the

constitution itself what's interesting is that what the supreme court seems to do most these days is what review the constitutionality or what they call constitutional questions that arise in legislation. Now, interestingly, that is not an enumerated power in the Constitution. That was given by judicial decision by the Supreme Court itself in 1803, and of course, the very famous case of Marbury versus Madison that gave us the principle of judicial review. Isn't that interesting? That what they seem to do most often,

they were not given the power to do in the constitution itself. Now, the process is that the president nominates somebody. Okay? Most often that's done from a list that his staff gives him of who their party likes. Okay? That's just the truth.

And whether on the left, they're trying to pick diversity candidates, or on the right, they want to get back to people who are going to be very conservative, right? Unless they want an expansive reading to meet their politics. And we saw that with Scalia, expanding our understanding of the Second Amendment.

And people can just, no, that's not true. No, he didn't. He took us back to the reading of the Constitution. No, he didn't. There had never been a judicial reckoning by the Supreme Court vis-a-vis the Second Amendment that found an individual right, meaning that each of us gets to exercise

what happens in the Second Amendment until that case. Okay? That's just a fact. We don't fake the funk here, and here's the real talk. Over 40 years of age, 52% of us experience some kind of ED between the ages of 40 and 70. I know it's taboo, it's embarrassing, but it shouldn't be. Thankfully, we now have HIMS,

and it's changing the vibe by providing affordable access to ED treatment, and it's all online. HIMS is changing men's health care. Why? Because it's giving you access to affordable and discreet sexual health treatments, and you do it right from your couch. HIMS provides access to clinically proven generic alternatives to Viagra or Cialis or whatever. And it's up to like 95% cheaper. And there are options as low as two bucks a dose. HIMS has hundreds of thousands of trusted subscribers.

So if ED is getting you down, it's time to pick it up. ED is getting you down, it's time to pick it up. Start your free online visit today at HIMS.com slash CCP. H-I-M-S dot com slash CCP. And you will get personalized ED treatment options. HIMS.com slash CCP. Prescriptions? You need an online consultation with a healthcare provider, and they will determine

if appropriate. Restrictions apply. You see the website, you'll get details and important safety information. You're going to need a subscription. It's required. Plus, price is going to vary based on product and subscription plan. The Chris Cuomo Project is

supported by Cozy Earth. Why? Because I like their sheets. That's why. A lot of people don't get a good night's sleep for a lot of reasons. One of the ones that you can control is bedding. One out of three of us report being sleep deprived. Okay, well, what is it? Well, it stresses all kinds of things.

But the wrong sheets can make you hot, can make you cold. I'm telling you, I don't even believe it either. But Cozy Earth sheets breathe. And here's what I love about them. Cozy Earth's best-selling sheet is a bamboo set, okay? Temperature-regulating. Gets softer with every wash. I'm not kidding you, all right?

Now, so if you go to CozyEarth.com and you enter the code, enter the code CHRIS, and you can get up to 35% off your first order. CozyEarth.com and the code is Chris. Now here's my beef. President nominates. The Senate has the constitutional authority to give advice and consent. What does that mean to vet? And they, through their own rules, have turned the vetting into a voting, okay? So now it's two-layered. You got to get through a committee, which has partisan numbers, right? And then you go to a simple majority vote of the entire Senate body. There's nothing in there about qualifications, meaning that a president could nominate you

to be a Supreme Court justice. You don't have to have any experience. I'm just saying. Why? Because it was assumed that he would pick the right people. I mean, that's just the way it was. Now, here's my problem with this process. Advise and consent, meaning what? They've created a culture where they don't require these men and women to say anything about their politics. They've adopted something that sounds like legal reasoning, but it isn't.

It's just convenience. Oh, I'm sorry. I can't talk to you about my feelings about reproductive rights or about abortion. I'd have to see the case. That's bullshit, okay? When you are somebody who is a diehard Catholic, who belongs to multiple organizations,

one specifically that does nothing but advocate for what is seen as pro-life positions, why can't Amy Coney Barrett talk to you about that? Why can't anyone on the left talk to you about that and what their politics are? Oh, because they're just going to forget that when they go there up on the bench? Really? Again, then why do these men and women vote with the interest of the party that put them in there so often that you know them by name when they don't. Why? Oh, well, because you're confusing. There's a distinction here that makes a difference, which is, it's just that if you have an

expansive view of the Constitution, then you find ways that the Democrats like. And if you have a conservative way, then you find the way that the Republicans like. No, not always. Not always. And if that were true, you wouldn't have seen Roe v. Wade, which wasn't a great reasoned, obvious, no-brainer decision, right? The penumbra of rights and all this other stuff. Roe v. Wade wasn't the strongest one, but it was stare decisis. It had been tested a bunch. And every judge on the right has always said, well, it is precedent.

It is stare decisis. You know what they don't tell you? You know when something that's stare decisis becomes non-stare decisis? When the court decides. They don't need a different vote. So that's the biggest fix that I see, is that our Senate should ask them about their politics and they should be directed to answer or they won't be conferred. And both sides should allow it. And that's not about the Constitution because there's nothing in there about your qualifications. So they make up those rules. And they have allowed this game to continue. And it's not about the constitution because there's nothing in there about your qualifications. So they make up those rules and they have allowed this game to continue. And it's hurting us because these men and women are political. You don't think Clarence Thomas is a conservative. You don't think

Sotomayor is a liberal. You don't think Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a liberal. And I'm not saying that that's good or bad. I'm just saying it is what it is. You want more people on the court? You could have that too. Do I think you should? I don't know. I'd want to see it debated. Can you have people be older? I think that's tricky. Why?

Because you fall into the same thing that you do with term limits. Now, now, now. No, you don't. Because they chewed on whether or not to have term limits at the Constitutional Convention and decided against it.

That's not the case when it comes to top-end age requirements or restrictions on the Supreme Court. They just said as long as they're in good behavior, and that's seen as being suggestive of lifetime appointment. Now, others have argued that you could do it by law where you take them off the court at a certain age and put them somewhere else in the judiciary, So they still have the appointment, but you know, whatever. But it hasn't been seen that way. So that means it would take a constitutional amendment. Do I think that that should be a constitutional amendment?

Yes, I do. I don't think you should have the biggest questions in your society decided by minds that aren't at their best. And I do think there's something about being there too long. I think that not just politically, but practically, Ruth Bader Ginsburg did the country no favor by staying as long as she did. I respected her fight, her medal.

But had she left sooner, Obama could have picked somebody else. Oh, they would have done them dirty like they did with Merrick Garland. Maybe, maybe not. But look how it turned out. I'm not faulting her. She was an amazing justice. Created such a great legacy, especially for women. And I loved her idea of how many women on the Supreme Court is enough. And she said,

all of them. Why not? You've had all men. Why wouldn't you have all women? I love that answer. And I love how it messes with your assumptions about what's okay. So can you change the Supreme Court for the better? Yes. A couple of the ways are really hard though. Why? You'd need a constitutional amendment or you'd need a big legal fix to expand it. But two of the changes you could do are political and one's already happened and one could really happen easily. One is have these people talk about their politics when you vet them. Stop with this bullshit that they can't talk about their politics.

It's got to be about the case because we know it doesn't bear out that way. And this Clarence Thomas stuff that's come out now is as much a reminder of their politics as it is about their disclosure and their finances. Now, the Supreme Court has its own rules. Justice Roberts has said, oh, yeah, we're going to look at those and make it more transparent.

First of all, what does it tell you that the Supreme Court had these cryptic rules about their disclosure? I'm telling you, power is an immutable aim, okay? And even the best of us are as susceptible as the rest of us when it comes to making things easy on themselves. But the good news is that that can be fixed by legislation.

And the Biden administration has the Courthouse Ethics and Transparency Act that requires the Supreme Court to do what the lower courts do, put things out sooner, put more things out and put them online so everybody else can see it. Because look, this stuff with Clarence Thomas fails the smell test.

It just does. Well, they don't make a lot of money, so they're allowed to have rich friends. Again, it's the semblance of impropriety. If you know that I have a big rich friend that pays for a lot of my stuff, you don't think that I have a conflict when I'm dealing with that guy? Oh, but they're not covering the person directly. Oh, but you don't think that their politics become more persuasive to me

when they're buying me all this stuff and they happen to be incredibly politically active and employ my wife and motivate her politics? Come on. So first, be straight about your politics. You can be fair and have political leanings, okay? And two, be transparent and put it all out there and let people judge what matters and what doesn't.

You want to be a public servant, serve the public. So can you have more? Yes. Can you have them get out when they're older? Yes, but you need a constitutional amendment. Can you have better? Absolutely, tomorrow. You can have the vetting

process of advice and consent include their political inclinations and their past, and you can have transparency in who's paying their bills and taking care of them. We can do better. Now that you understand, and we've exposed the game at play here, will you oppose it and force people to change it? Thank you very much for joining me here. I'm Chris Cuomo. Thank you for subscribing and following to the Chris Cuomo Project. I'm very happy to do a little homework for you, do a little research, break some things down, expose them for you so that you can decide whether to support or oppose. Let's get after it, my brothers and sisters. We only get one chance at this. And life, that is. Take care of yourselves and take care of the people you care about.

I'll see you next time.