>> I WANT TO BRING INTO OUR
CONVERSATION, DEMOCRATIC SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA, MEMBER OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
I WORKED IN THE,TIVE BRANCH AND
I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT TODAY,
THE LONGER I SERVED AND THE MORE
SENIOR I BECAME, THE MORE
INTENSE THE BACKGROUND CHECK
INTO ME BECAME AND THE MORE
CLEARANCES I WAS REQUIRED TO
HAVE TO DO MY JOB, THE MORE
SCRUTINY AND THE DEEPER THE
BACKGROUND CHECK AND THE FARTHER
BACK THEY WENT IN TERMS OF YEARS
TO SEE IF I WAS SUITED FOR THAT
JOB.
THE MORE TRANSPARENCY THAT WAS
ASKED OF ME, YOU KNOW, THE
LONGER I SERVED AND THE FARTHER
UP THE CHAIN I WENT.
IT IS THE INVERSE IN THE
JUDICIARY, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE
SUPREME COURT IS CONCERNED.
HOW MUCH OF LAYING OUT THESE
FACTS IS PART OF THE PUBLIC
EDUCATION PIECE TO MAKE SURE THE
PUBLIC UNDERSTAND ONE OF THESE
THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER?
>> NICOLE, YOU BRING UP A GREAT
POINT.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
IT’S ACTUALLY A THEME THAT I
TRIED TO RAISE IN JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE THIS MORNING.
THERE’S I THINK AN ASSUMPTIONPY
THE GENERAL PUBLIC, THE ETHICS
LAWS AND TRANSPARENCY AND
DISCLOSURE RULES APPLY TO
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES BUT THEY
DO NOT.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, ADMINISTRATION
OFFICIALS, YOU’RE AN EXAMPLE,
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, ELECTED
OFFICIALS AT ALL LEVELS OF
GOVERNMENTS, HAVE THESE BINDING
ENFORCEABLE ETHICS LAWS,
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS, ET CETERA AND YOU
WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY APPLY TO
THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND.
BUT WE’RE FINDING OURSELVES IN A
SITUATION WHERE THE HIGHEST
COURT IN THE LAND IS TRYING TO
ABIDE BY THE LOWEST ETHICAL
STANDARDS AND THAT’S WHAT WE’RE
TRYING TO CORRECT HERE.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS
REBUFFED, THE NICEST WAY TO PUT
IT, THE COMMITTEE’S INVITATION.
HAVE YOU REACHED OUT TO THE
OTHER JUSTICES?
>> LOOK, I’VE -- I HAVE THROUGH
THE CHAIRMANSHIP AND LEADERSHIP
OF THE CHAIR OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.
I THINK SENATE DEMOCRATS ON THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE STAND BEHIND
HIS EFFORTS, IF NOT TO GET
JUSTICE THOMAS TO COME TO THE
COMMITTEE, YOU KNOW, CHIEF
JUSTICE ROBERTS TO ANSWER THESE
VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, AND
BECAUSE OF HIS REFUSAL, THEN WE
HAVE TO OBTAIN THESE OTHER
OPTIONS.
IT’S AN EXAMPLE OF THE SUPREME
COURT THAT REFUSES TO REGULATE
ITSELF, POLICE ITSELF AND PUT IN
PLACE THESE MINIMUM COMMON SENSE
ETHICS REQUIREMENTS THAT THE
GENERAL PUBLIC DESERVES.
AND LET’S BE CLEAR HERE.
YOU PUT UP STATISTICS ABOUT THE
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OR CONFIDENCE
OR LACK THEREOF IN THE SUPREME
COURT WHETHER IT’S OFFICIAL
ETHICS VIOLATIONS OR JUST THE
PERCEPTION OF BAD ACTIVITY,
THAT’S NOT GOOD FOR THE SUPREME
COURT, NOT GOOD FOR THE
JUDICIARY, NOT GOOD FOR THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL
AND NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
IT’S ALREADY BAD ENOUGH WHEN THE
SUPREME COURT MAKES IT EASIER
FOR WEALTHY PEOPLE TO INFLUENCE
THE OUTCOME OF ELECTIONS, AND
MAKES IT HARDER FOR
WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE TO VOTE OR
EVERY OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUE
WORKS ITS WAY UP TO THE SUPREME
COURT FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION TO IMMIGRATION, TO
CHOICE AND ACCESS TO
REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES,
CONFIDENCE IN THE DECISIONS BY
THE SUPREME COURT IS PARAMOUNT.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE HARLAN
CROWE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
ANSWERING QUESTIONS?
>> THERE’S A LOT OF PEOPLE
STARTING WITH HARLAN CROW THAT
NEED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
YOU MADE REFERENCE TO HOW
PARTISAN SOME OF THE DISCUSSION
IN THE COMMITTEE WAS, JUST ASK
YOURSELF THIS, HOW WOULD
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE SENATE
BE REACTING IF THE REPORTED
CONDUCT WE’VE BEEN READING ABOUT
WAS BY A JUSTICE APPOINTED BY A
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT.
IT’S NOT THE NEW APPOINTED
JUSTICE IN QUESTION.
IT IS THE CONDUCT, WHETHER A
JUSTICE APPOINTED BY A
DEMOCRATIC OR A REPUBLICAN
PRESIDENT, IT’S THE CONDUCT THAT
IS UNACCEPTABLE.
>> LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT YOUR
COLLEAGUE SENATOR BLUMENTHAL HAD
TO SAY ABOUT THAT.
>> THE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS
PLUMMETED.
WE CAN GO BACK AND FORTH AS TO
WHAT CAUSE IS, BUT A LOT OF THE
AMERICAN PUBLIC ARE INCREASINGLY
SEEING THE JUSTICES AS
POLITICIANS IN ROBES AND NOW,
AFTER THE REVELATION ABOUT
JUSTICE THOMAS AS CORRUPT
POLITICIANS IN ROBES.
THEY WANT AN INVESTIGATION, THEY
WANT THE TRUTH.
IT SHOULD BE DONE BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BECAUSE
THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS OF
CRIMINAL WRONGDOING HERE VIOLATIONS BY JUSTICE THOMAS OF
THE DISCLOSURE LAWS INCOMPLETE,
INACCURATE REPORTING AND
NONDISCLOSURE AND IN THE LACK OF
AN INVESTIGATION, WE HAVE A ROLE
TO PLAY IN CONGRESS.
THE JUDGES HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY,
TOO, IN PROTECTING THEMSELVES.
WHAT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS HAS
DONE REFUSING TO COME BEFORE
THIS COMMITTEE IS JUDICIAL
MALPRACTICE.
>> IT SEEMS LIKE HE’S PUTTING
THIS IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT
BUCKETS.
ONE IS WHAT WE’VE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT, THE LACK OF AN ETHICS
CODE THAT IS ON PAR WITH WHAT
YOU HAVE TO DO AS A SENATOR, ON
PAR WITH WHAT PEOPLE SERVING IN
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, CABINET
DOWN TO STAFFERS LIKE I WAS.
BUT THE SECOND IS THIS -- THESE
DISCLOSURE VIOLATIONS WHICH THE
SENATOR ALLEGES MAY BE
VIOLATIONS OF LAW.
WHAT -- I MEAN ARE YOU
CONSIDERING A CRIMINAL REFERRAL
TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO
INVESTIGATE THAT?
>> WELL, AGAIN, I THINK THERE
NEEDS TO BE CONSEQUENCES, BUT TO
GET TO THOSE APPROPRIATE
CONSEQUENCES THERE NEEDS TO BE
AN INVESTIGATION.
AND SO THE REPORT THAT’S BEEN
DONE THROUGH THE PRESS IS --
SHOWS THERE’S MORE THAN SMOKE
THERE.
WHETHER IT’S THE SUPREME COURT
THEMSELVES AND THEY’RE REFUSING
TO HOLD THEMSELVES TO ACCOUNT OR