In the latest attempt to create phony Supreme Court scandals, MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle used Tuesday’s The 11th Hour to wonder why John Roberts’s wife is allowed to make money, why Clarence Thomas is allowed to have rich friends, and why Neil Gorusch is allowed to sell property to Democrats.
Addressing chief New York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker, Ruhle wondered, “why are there no rules, right?” She claimed that “I don't think it goes far beyond common sense to think a chief justice’s wife shouldn't be paid millions of dollars from a law firm.”
Why shouldn’t Jane Roberts be allowed to make millions of dollars in the legal profession? There is no evidence any of the lawyers she placed at those firms ever argued before the Court. However, that information is buried in paragraph 36 of the original Business Insider report. Paragraph 33 reported seven figure compensation is not unheard of.
Ruhle, then wondered why Thomas is allowed to have rich friends to take him on vacations, “A big fat developer who is politically active shouldn't be taking on multi hundred thousand dollar vacations.”
She wrapped up by wondering why conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch is allowed to sell property to a rich Democrat he never met, although she naturally omitted those last two details, “and you shouldn't be getting into real estate transactions with heads of law firms that appear before your court. Why aren’t there already rules around that, Peter?”
Baker responded by reporting that the Court believes the separation of powers doesn’t allow Congress to set its rules. He also declared that the Democrats’ effort to pass an ethics bill will fail because Republicans don’t support it.
This led Ruhle to tell Baker’s New York Times colleague, Justice Department reporter Katie Benner, that the Court is full of hypocrites, “Man, Katie, this is a dream job. You’re on the bench for life, and you can, kind of, do whatever you want, with no rules. The irony, these are the people who sit -- these are the judges, and they have no rules that apply to them.”
Benner accepted the premise that the Court has a responsibility to appease its bad faith critics, “And what’s so important about faith when it comes to the Supreme Court, when it comes to law enforcement functions, is that if people do not have faith that they are fundamentally fair and they fundamentally work, that really eats away at the bedrock of what we think of as the American democracy.”
She also argued that the Court is just the latest institution to undergo a crisis of trust, “So, other institutions, the presidency, the Justice Department, are facing these things now. Previous to that, industry, corporations, the media, they've also faced those questions.”
Concluding her thoughts, Benner claimed that the Court may be having conversations out of public view “about whether or not there needs to be internal safeguards created, that would allow-- to restore faith amongst the public. The faith that is essential to the courts.”
The problem with that is that MSNBC and their Democratic friends don’t really care about Jane Roberts or Harlan Crow. The reason they don’t have faith in the Court is because they have failed in their efforts to pressure the Court to rule the way they desire.
This segment was sponsored by Fidelity.
Here is a transcript for the May 2 show:
MSNBC The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle
5/2/2023
11:06 PM ET
STEPHANIE RUHLE: But, why are there no rules, right? I don't think it goes far beyond common sense to think a chief justice’s wife shouldn't be paid millions of dollars from a law firm. A big fat developer who is politically active shouldn't be taking on multi hundred thousand dollar vacations, and you shouldn't be getting into real estate transactions with heads of law firms that appear before your court. Why aren’t there already rules around that, Peter?
PETE BAKER: Well, Glenn and Katie probably know better than I do, but look, the Supreme Court has always guarded its prerogatives as a separate, co-equal branch of government. It doesn't believe in the separation of powers allows, or at least shouldn't allow Congress to set rules for another branch, in that sense.
That’s why they're the only Court in the land that does not have ethics rules that are applied to them, in the way that other courts are. But, that doesn’t mean that, of course, there aren't concerns and usually, these concerns over the years have prompted at least some changes. But, the changes at this point have come from within, rather than from without and it doesn't look likely that Congress is going to be able to legislate this without some sort of a more of a bipartisan look at this and partisanship at the moment is going to make this will make this hard to accomplish.
RUHLE: Man, Katie, this is a dream job. You’re on the bench for life, and you can, kind of, do whatever you want, with no rules. The irony, these are the people who sit -- these are the judges, and they have no rules that apply to them.
KATIE BENNER: I mean, they have no rules that apply to them, but they’re starting to feel the forces that have impacted every other American institution. They’re just coming later to the Supreme Court, which is an extreme call for transparency, which is the public being able to voice its own opinions, its own doubts and, a lot more loudly than ever and then a lot of loss of faith in an institution.
And what’s so important about faith when it comes to the Supreme Court, when it comes to law enforcement functions, is that if people do not have faith that they are fundamentally fair and they fundamentally work, that really eats away at the bedrock of what we think of as the American democracy.
So, other institutions, the presidency, the Justice Department, are facing these things now. Previous to that, industry, corporations, the media, they've also faced those questions.
The Supreme Court has been particularly insulated for a long time, it’s an insular community of a few justices, and they set their own rules. But, with this sort of pressure, I think what you're going to see is internal conversations that we, in the public, might not be privy to about whether or not there needs to be internal safeguards created, that would allow-- to restore faith amongst the public. The faith that is essential to the courts.
