Justice Clarence Thomas is no stranger to being maligned by the left. He faced one of the nastiest and most evil character assassinations during his confirmation hearing.
He famously said this about it. Listen, I think that this today is a travel steer.
I think that it is disgusting. I think that this hearing should never occur in America. I think something is dreadfully wrong with this country when any person, any person in this free country would be subjected to this.
This is a circus.
It's a national.
Disgrace, and from my standpoint as of a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high attack lynching.
He is not once again on the receiving end of attacks from the left. This time they are questioning his financial disclosures. It also comes at a time when other conservative justice are under attack by the media as well. This is clearly an orchestrated, coordinated attack to delegitimize the Supreme Court. So who's behind this smear of conservative justices and what exactly are they trying to accomplish. Carrie Severino, president of JCN and the author of Justice on Trial, joins.
Me to get to the BOTB of it.
Stay tuned, Carrie, It's such an honor to have you on the show.
I've worked in DC or did.
I no longer work in DC, but did work in politics long enough to know a coordinated attack when I see one. We've seen hits recently on Justice Clarence Thomas Gorsuch Roberts.
This is coordinated, is it not?
I mean, I think it's pretty obvious. Again, if this has all the hallmarks of that. Suddenly, out of the blue we go from zero to sixty on people doing deep dives and going through with a fine tooth. Come the financial files of not every justice, but a select justices, and wouldn't you know it's all the conservative justices. And then there's this, you know, staged release of the opinions.
And it's even interesting, you know, things like Justice Chief Justice Roberts is invited to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which in itself is very unusual.
They want to try to question the Chief.
Justice, and then as soon as he declines the next day there's a piece about his wife and suggesting that, you know that her job as a legal recruiter or somehow improper. So it's all of these things are just very clearly targeting the conservative justices in the court, and they're clearly I think, there to try to intimidate the justices saying, hey, if you don't follow the direction that we want, we finally don't have a court that is
just doing the bidding of the left. Now we're going to come after you, and we're going to try these personal attacks to delegitimize those justices and or remove them from the court or from the cases.
Why now do you think I think it's you.
Know, coincidence that we're seeing this at the same time as we are seeing the first time in living memory that we have a court that has a majority of originalist justices. For again, all of living memory, we've had a court that has been effectively willing to give the left what it wants on some of the major issues
that come before it. Issues in some cases there are the ones that should be decided in the political realm, but that they can't get done what they want to, and so then they are relying on the court to play back up and kind of get things over the finish line they couldn't get done legislatively and trying to open the doors for liberal policies to be enacted via the court. We have a court that's not playing that game. Their job is to look at the constitution and what the law says.
They know it.
And so as soon as you have a court that isn't playing by their game, they start attacking the court itself because they're so frustrated to see justices whose first duty is not to trying to achieve these liberal policy goals but relate to the constitution and the rule of law.
Now, we've seen attacks on the Supreme Court before, you know, throughout history. Are these attacks different than what we've seen before.
There have been examples in history where similar types of things have happened. I think we certainly have a focus on it more than other times. I'm thinking of, you know, the last big time we saw this that comes to mind might be when President Franklin Delan Roosevelt was really frustrated with the Court because he's enacting all of his you know, New Deal programs.
The court was saying, hey, you know, we think some of.
These have real constitutional problems, and he's going, how can I get rid of these justices?
And that's when he proposed for.
The first time, you know again that I can think of just a purely political thing saying let's pack the court, let's add justices, so that I, as the president, get to pick more of these justices to shift the direction the court is going. And even with a overwhelming majority and a huge mandate from the Democratic controlled Congress, he couldn't get that done because they said that's.
Beyond the pale.
So we're seeing attacks like that that failed so spectacularly in nineteen thirty seven being brought back now, but additional things as well, so that we're getting these personal attacks
on the justices. I think we saw hints of this in Justice Thomas's confirmation in nineteen ninety, in the Justice Kavanaugh confirmation in twenty eighteen, So all of these are sort of just increasing in volume and increasing in focus, and we're seeing things that I don't know have ever happened in American history, like the dosing of the justices.
Not just their homes, which is bad enough, but often they're places of worship, the places their children go to school, and that additional threat level, so it's not just an attack on them personally their reputation, but even physically. And we saw, of course an attempted assassination that we now know was and just targeting Justice Kavanaugh, but actually he was going to try to take out three justices that night if he was able to. So some of those
things really are new. And to have the White House and Democratic members of the Senate really encouraging that type of behavior makes it takes it again to the next level into something that I don't know that we've ever seen before.
To that point.
I mean, you had Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer on the Supreme Court steps in March of twenty twenty about Justices Gorsage in Kavanaugh saying that they had released the whirlwind, that they would pay the price if they continue to make awful decisions. And you had Sheldon white House not too long ago also attacked the Supreme Court saying it is not well, the people know it, perhaps the Court can heal itself, or basically making the threat that they'll
have to do something about it. So just overt verbal threats, even from our Democrat leaders.
Absolutely, it's really outrageous to see that. And then you they have the guts to say, wow, there's something wrong, because for some reason, the American people believe there's an appearance of improprietary. They have record low levels of confidence.
In the Supreme Court, and you're going, it's because you have been.
And now we're moving into several years of a focused campaign trying to tell the American people that the Court is acting politically and is not behaving properly, which is
just lies. So they're trying to find they're creating the problem itself of American people not trusting the Court really to provide the excuse that they would need to do things like pack the court, to do things like trying to you know, they're talks about trying to even add term limits on justices or create new ethical standards that really we know are just a form of them trying to bully the justices because any of these ethical concerns
is not something that's being applied even handedly. They're basically inventing new ethic standards out of whole cloth, not people haven't run a foul of the actual ethic standards that are out there. They're inventing new standards, but they're only inventing them for a subset of the justices. So all of these things, they're really targeting the justices that they know we're going to get attacked in the media and get attacked by these same unscrupulous members of Congress.
What are those duties look like for the Supreme Court justices to disclose finances?
You know, what does that look like?
And are any of these allegations that have been made against you know, Thomas or some of the other justices, do any of these run a foul to what their responsibility is?
What we have seid, So justices do have.
There's one fallacy that's out there that's again intentional misrepresentation, suggesting that while it's just the wild west of the Supreme Court, they can do whatever the heck they want, there's nothing that governs it. That's not true. They do have annual disclosures they have to file. They do have a recusal statutes that do govern them and that they follow, and that they consult each other in terms of determining, Okay, at what point should I recuse in this case type
case or that type of case. So there absolutely are standards that the justices are following. Now are they followed perfectly every time?
No? But what we're seeing here is nitpicking on errors.
Just as if any one of us, if you had someone in fact not just someone, a team of someone's, a team of highly financed from media, from dark money groups in the left wing going through your tax returns, for example, and said with a fine tooth comb, I bet they could find a typo or two.
Right.
Does that mean that you are somehow maliciously doing these things? No, it's just a complicated form. So what we've seen historically is absolutely there are justices who have forgotten to disclose things or incorrectly disclose things, but those justices.
Actually do run the gamut.
Justice Ginsberg, for example, sat on dozens of cases inadvertently in which her husband owned stock. Now, normally that would be just an easy given if you or your spouse owned stock and something you have to recuse. And I don't think at all that for a minute she was voting differently in those cases because her husband owned stock.
I don't think she knew or she would have recused herself.
But it's that type of thing that when it happens to a left wing justice or justice Jackson just neglected to disclose certain aspects of her income, her husband's medical malpractice work that she just forgotten then later amended her filings, and that's viewed as kind of like, oh, okay, they just amended this great, and I think that's right. This
wasn't malicious, there wasn't real corruption. But those same levels of things on the right are being treated as if there is a corrupt mafia running the institution and that these justices are up for sale, which is patently false.
And even when the Senate Judiciary Committee had a hearing last week talking about this, even the liberal witnesses on their side, after making all of these suggestions and kind of eyebrow raising and suggesting and inferring that these justices are up for sale, when they were directly asked, are you wait, who are you saying has sold their votes?
Who are you saying is actually corrupt the guys? Oh I didn't. I know, I wouldn't.
I wouldn't actually accuse them because that would be slanderous.
I mean, that's not what's happening.
It's people trying to exploit minor issues or things that they're saying, Hey, I wish the diskills the rules were different. You follow the rules, but I think you should disclose more. Okay, we can talk about that, but don't pretend that people who follow the rules now somehow we're doing something inappropriate when that's not true.
Let's take a quick commercial break more with Carrie Savarino on the other side, If you look at Joe Biden, it seems like some of the most discrediting and some of the biggest attacks on Supreme Court nominees or the Supreme Court itself have come under his watch.
I mean, you look at right now. He's part of the United States.
He's at the helm of two of the nastiest Supreme Court confirmation hearings, whether it was Clarence Thomas or Robert Borke.
So, I mean, how much does that have to do with it? Oh?
Yeah, I mean Biden has been part of the ringleader of this crazy judicial intimidation circus from day one.
I mean he was around during the Bork era. Eve.
I mean this is like very early on in this process. He was leading the Judiciary Committee during the Thomas hearings. He he is definitely part of the problem, and we're seeing under his administration things like him going from saying court packing is a bonehead idea, which was correct, that's what he said in nineteen eighty two, to then saying, actually, maybe it's something we should consider it. Well, we should consider it when maybe it gives me extra people to put on the court.
Right, It's a very clear shift there.
You've seen him, you know, say one thing about Justice Thomas, don't worry. I realize these charges are you know, unfounded, and then going and helping lead the three wing circus against him during his confirmation hearings.
He is willing to play multiple sides of it.
You know, when Justice were being docksed again and people are making threats against them, you had his spokeswoman saying, you know, we wish really support people's First Amendment rights and we're proud of a maybe American right to protest. What is the message being sent when people are violating federal law by trying to intimidate the justices regarding an active case, because they were doing this intentionally to try to change the justice's vote on the Dobbs opinion last year.
They basically said, we support this, we endorse this, and that's that is a huge message that's being sent by this administration. And I think the bottom line is he's willing to say and do whatever it is to get more power, including more power over the Supreme Court.
Yeah.
I mean, if you want to talk about ethics, Joe Biden has none. And you know, if there's any question that this isn't coordinated, you had mentioned the Senate Judiciaries Committee hearing called Supreme Court Ethics reform after these articles had surfaced, so you know it clearly is this coordinated attempt? You know, Carrie, from your perspective, obviously you follow this
closer than anyone in the Supreme Court. Has this impacted any of the decision making these threats the you know, people outside of the justices' homes, or even assassination attempt Have you noticed has it been working, this attimidation?
You know, I think it definitely. It clearly didn't.
In the case of the Dobbs decision, right, we saw a decision that was leaked May second last year, and then came out in substantially the same form at the end of June June twenty fourth, and they I think they were consciously.
Saying we are not going to bow to this pressure.
Were there were some changes that were just not changes, additions addressing concerns brought up by the dissent, for example, that wasn't available at the time, but they basically said, no, we are not changing our position and I think that's what the Court has been doing.
Now.
One thing that I wonder is is this slowing down their work. We've seen this court this term has been one of the slowest release of opinions. We have tons of opinions still to come out, and there's really just over a month left. And maybe some of the extra security protocols and the extra difficulty of knowing who they can trust, even internally, maybe I think that could be
slowing down the ability to work. I think there has to be trust rebuilt within the court elf amongst each other, amongst the clerks and the staff, and I think that is a real shame and a tragedy. I worry that it could influence justices saying, hey, this is you know, there's a whole lot of really important issues that are always coming up. I hope they're not looking at cases going wow, that is an issue that in a vacuum, I would say the Court has to address, but we
just don't need any more pressure this year. I hope that's not happening. But we know one hundred percent that is the goal of all of this. They know that, for example, these threats against Justice Thomas, like trying to get him to move. Come on, nobody can move Justice Thomas from what he knows is the right thing mandated the content by the Constitution. That man has a spine
of steel. But I think they're trying to hope to influence the other justices and say, maybe we just want to stay a little farther back here.
I don't think that has worked, but I want I think we need to be.
Really out there ensuring that it doesn't have a chance to work, and that people shouldn't be keeping this kind of pressure up because no one, for the sake of doing their job and enforcing the Constitution should have to sacrifice their personal privacy and the safety of themselves and their family.
Well, and you know, not many people have the kind of integrity Justice Clarence does, or can face the sort of character assassination that he faced, you know, even from the beginning during his confirmation hearings up until you know this point. Not that many people are that rock ribbed and just strong in their beliefs to be able to withstand that kind of slander.
Yeah.
Absolutely, And I think it has so many layers to it because they love to make his life miserable. I I feel like that's bonus points for them, but it sends a message to other judges, justices. It sends a message to other judges who might one day think, Okay, I could theoretically be aligned for the Supreme Court.
Do I want that position?
You know?
Do I want to put my family and my own reputation in life through the ringer or that it's going to be to in order to do that. And again, that shouldn't be part of the calculus. We want our best men women on the bench to want this job and not to say, Okay, I'm going to take this knowing that I'm going to have to like sacrifice myself.
On the altar of the Constitution. This isn't that.
That shouldn't be the cost we are demanding, and we should be requiring our representatives, especially you think, gosh, these senators, these supposed to be representing American people. I know there are radicals out there who really do want the Court intimidated, but I don't think that's where most of America is. And I think that those people who are part of this process ought to be held to account, and the American people should stand up, just like it did in
nineteen thirty seven. To say, you know what, Okay, politics is politics, and maybe I don't agree with some of the decisions the Court makes, but no one should be trying to undermine the institution of the Court the way that they are and trying to drag the good names of our justices through the mud.
That's really the point in the direction all this is heading. As you pointed that, you know, good candidates might be like, hey, this isn't worth it. You know, I don't want to have to go through this. I mean, that's why they're doing this to Trump as well. Whey they've tried to destroy his life so that future Republican candidates are like, you know what, I just this isn't worth it. I don't want to drag my family through the mud. I don't drag myself through the mud. And you know, it's
the intimidation fact that they're intentionally trying to do. I do worry that it'll it'll work in the future. I'm sure people have probably given pause to stick their knock out there in these various positions.
This is not the way our American system of the rule of law should operate. The reason our Constitution gave justicees life tenure was so that they would be able to have an independent judgment, that they wouldn't have to rule on cases thinking, Okay, I want to make this person mad because I might need to ask them for a job later. I don't want to alienate this industry or this you know, this party because I'm going to be back in the loop again.
Sometimes they said, you know, we want you off the table. You are just.
Focusing on doing what's right as a matter of law. So our constitution realized, we want people to be independent thinker and not be prone to having to make people happy.
Here's the challenge.
They're still trying to use whatever lovers of power they can, and it's increasingly people are saying the quiet part out loud, and you've got people on the left tweeting about and writing about how yeah, the goal should be to try to make them worried, either for their safety or for their for their good name, we should our goal should be to cancel people and drum them out of polite society. They shouldn't be allowed to speak at a law school, go out to dinner, you know, you name it, because
we want them to be punished for their positions. That is contrary to our constitution envisions that role of trying to have someone independent and I think the justice as we do have are going to, you know, still try to stay the course and stay firm, but we should not make that harder for them in the process. We want a our court to be free of that pressure. And just think about it, particularly respect to the threats
to security. And now you have the senators who are again just they said, well, if if you're not going to adopt the ethics code that we want, maybe we'll just cut your funding. And oh, coincidentally, we're going to cut it the same amount of the funding that you're asking for security increases for the court.
You know why they need the security increases because of this intimidation campaign.
And so it's almost making this direct link of if you don't do what we want, we're going to put your security at risk. That is the kind of intimidation and you know, problems with separation of powers.
I might expect somewhere like of Venezuela.
I might expect that in Cuba, threats from you know, the administration or from the legislature to the court. If you don't know what we want, your safety is at risk. We might not be able to protect you. That's not what I would expect in the United States of America.
We want our justices to be making their decisions based on what they know to be right according to the rule of law, their best estimate of that, their best understanding, and what the law requires, not based on I am concerned for what will happen to me personally if I rule one way or the other.
Although we're very increasingly looking like a different country than or founding fathers had envisioned, and unfortunately looking you know, closer to Venezuela or China or some of these other authoritarian nations in a variety of ways. You'd mentioned some of the intimidation. I mean, we saw senators face this
as well during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. I mean, I know that I got incredibly fired up during that because not only is it wrong to smear an innocent man, which he clearly was, and it was very clear that Christine Ford was lying, but you know, we had senators face death threats, have to have security during that time period as well, I mean, they their lives were threatened.
Yeah, and some of this comes from the over the hyper rhetoric about these things. People saying, oh my gosh, these justices are trying to end democracy as we know it. So you kind of amp this up. And look, we know that even in terms of some of the people who are doing these protests or even the ones in front of their homes, thank god, the vast majority of the people aren't actually violent.
But we also know there are crazy people out there.
When you see this kind of rhetoric and you and you tell these lies about people, is it surprising that you do get every once in a while a crazy person who then you know, packs his bags, puts in the zip ties and the gun and the knife and the everything, and flies across the country hoping to kill a justice.
That is, you know, it is really reckless.
And to have, as we've talked about before, members of the Senate who are throwing these threats out there and who are telling lies, saying that these justices are actually just you know, bought and paid for and this is that's that is you know, criminal, and it's and it's incredibly destructive to our national fabric to be trying to seed this, you know, these lies into the American people.
We should be trying to encourage them to support the justices, and if you have arguments you want to make before the court, great, there are ways to do that. That's why we have an adversary process. There's always strong arguments on both sides of these important cases. Make your arguments to the justices in the courtroom. Don't try to make it to them with threats on.
Their front lawn.
Quick break and then more on the effort to delegitimize the Supreme Court.
It's not the rule of law under attack.
I mean, I think most conservatives at least would say that we have an unequal application of the law. If you look at the way you know, the January sixth defendants are being treated versus you know, the George Floyd rioters, or you look at what they've done to pro lafers in America, well seemingly disinterested in fighting people who are firebombing pregnancy centers, or the treatment of Hillary Clinton versus
the treatment of Trump people. You know, like, there's just so many examples of this broader sentiment that there is no equal application of the law anymore, and it is being weaponized against us.
Yeah, I mean, that is why the Supreme Court is so important to have in there as a check because there are, and you know, unfortunately there's in any system. This is why we have the constitutional system we do, because the founders new there is that temptation. Anytime you put a human being with this level of authority, there's going to be the temptation to say, weaponize it against
your political enemies and not against your friends. This is why, for example, the First Amendment is supposed to be so strictly you know, equal viewpoint neutral. So you don't have the government saying some speech is more equal than others. Right, We're to let some.
People speak, but not others.
We need to be able to have this apply across the board, and so the Supreme Court's role is often to step in and say, okay, wait a minute. You know, I might even agree with what these people are saying, but I'm not going to allow them to weaponize the government. And we need to ensure that due process is being done, the law is being fairly applied, or you know, you
fill in the blank issue that we're seeing happen. One of the key factors of a rule of law is that laws of the same laws apply to people regardless of whether you agree or disagree, regardless of whether they
are a minority group or a majority group. And I think, unfortunately, there's a lot of aspects of our society that are really calling that into question right now, the idea of even handedness, whether it's the First Amendment and free speech or freedom of religion, or even the Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection.
Hey, well some races are more equal than others.
Nope, Nope, that's not that's not what the fourteenth the Mement says. And you know, regardless of whether you say, well, I've got benign reasons for applying it this way because I think I'm trying to just help good groups.
You're okay, great, but that's again, that's not the rule of law.
A rule of law means we have to apply all of these things even handedly and equally across the board. So I think that's why it's so important to have a court that can be independent and can provide that check when the elected branches aren't maybe don't follow their better angels in these cases, and are allowing themselves to weaponize our system.
I understand that point.
I guess what concerns me is, you know, we live in a country where it seems like, you know, some percentage of the country believes in the Constitution adheres to the Constitution, while the other percentage they want to set it on fire.
Some of these really outspoken people on the left, you've heard even again, they're saying the quiet parwer out loud. It's explicitly saying, hey, the Constitution is trash and you know it needs to be changed or gotten rid of, and that is really dangerous. I think there's people who are treating the Constitution as a speed bump in terms of getting to where they want to go, rather than
actually recognizing that the values it represents are important. And you know that can happen on either side, and there are some people in the extremes on either side who who forget that these protections are here to protect all of us and we need to hold them even handedly.
I think the challenge is trying to I do think most Americans, even those on the on you know, on the left where people are some people are saying the Constitution needs to be shifted or changed if it's getting in the way of us enacting the policies we want.
I think at the end of the day, most people do respect that, and I think this is part of the reason it's so important to make sure that we are actually teaching real civics to our kids, because these are such important lessons that, hey, even if we disagree on how to get to whatever result, we have to respect our constitutional system and the process. And I'm not sure that's being taught to our kids the way it
was taught when when we were in school. So I think it's it's so important for them to learn that those values are core to our system and into it being able to function. And that's what allows us then to talk to our neighbors to try to, you know, adamantly argue for our opinions about the best policies while recognizing, you know, the the that their opinions actually get get to be heard in the public as well. That's that
is not appreciated as well as should be nowadays. And I am hoping that we can do our best to reignite these values, because I do think that's what most people want at the end of the day, if they can stop and really think through the implications of these different systems.
I do think it's with intention that kids are not being taught some of these things, because a dumb society is more easily indoctrinated. And I think that's the intention of what's happening in a lot of our schools these days. And to your point, it does seem like, you know, these attacks have been going on for a long time, but it's just or more overt now. I mean, there's no they're they're saying the quiet part out loud. There's no intention anymore to try.
To conceal the attacks. It's just out in the open.
Yeah.
In some ways it makes it easier because it's like, Wow, I don't have to tell you that this is their goal because they're saying it right. But I hope that maybe some people that'll give some people pause and say, wait, is that is that really how I want to live? Is that really the society that I want my children growing up in. I just hope that we can turn that around and remind people of those key foundational values before it's too late, before we lose them.
Why do you think they haven't been able to find the dobs leaker? It doesn't seem like that would be that hard to be able to track the individual down.
Well, it's interesting.
Justice Alito just gave an interview in which he suggested that he pretty much knows who the Dobbs leaker is, and if he knows, I'm sure all the justices have a pretty good idea. I think their challenge is they don't have enough evidence to prove it to enough level that they would be able to, consistent with due process, actually publicize that person's name or really bring them to justice, because we know that they have committed it multiple I'm
sure different potentially criminal offenses by leaking that. And it's interesting when the Marshall, the US Marshals gave the report on it, they listed all of the different statutes that were potentially violated by this leaker. So this is someone who in order to be really brought to justice, they're going to need an extra level of proof against I think. I think my guess is that not enough was done
quickly enough. I think what we've seen from some of the marshals report and the information out there is that there were not enough procedures in place that would have
allowed them to collect that evidence. I'm assuming those procedures have been put in place now so that you would know, say who's printed or save defile, or be able to follow the complete chain of custody of those documents in a way that they just didn't have in the system at all, which unfortunately, I think the Court really wasn't up to its game on the security. But I think
I'm sure they're implementing some of those things now. I hope it's not too late, but I think they really did miss their main window for finding the person when everyone was still in the building, because by now, you know those clerks who are working that year, and the assumption it is a clerk, and even some of the more shorter terms chamber staff.
Will have been gone long gone from the.
Court at this point, So how do you have any more leverage over them? And we know that the staff of the court was all asked to swear under oath that they didn't have any knowledge of what happened. So someone out there has perjured him or herself, assuming that it was an internal court employee, which I think is almost almost certain, So that's it's going to be a
real challenge. I think at this point we might not find out until that person outs him or herself, and that might be you know, they're gonna have to wait till after the Statute of Limitations runs on these crimes, they have committed if they don't want to get in a lot of trouble. So I think they're going to wait till they can cash in their New York Times
best selling tell All. But it might not be for many years to come if they have to wait till, you know, the Statute of limitations runs on their actions here.
I feel like this is just speculation.
I obviously have no insider not on it, but I feel like it was a leftist justice and that's why there's such an effort to conceal it. I think if it was a staffer, they would have thrown that individual under the bus. That's just my own I literally have just purely speculative. I've got nothing, nothing to back it up besides guts.
We know well, look, we know there are justices who regularly leaked the press because.
We have seen reports.
You know, there was a book recently by a CNN reporter that clearly has and going through from the Obamacare case on, we've had indications of what was going on behind closed doors that clearly only a justice would have known. So there are leakers among the justices and that's a real concern. What Justice Alito suggested, and maybe he's optimistic in this. He said, well, gosh, this is something that literally put the lives of six of the justices at risk.
And he was responding to the fact that some people have just laughably suggested maybe he was the leaker or something. I'm like, he's like, you know, I had to go into hiding because to this leak. I don't think I would have leaked that that opinion, even to try to keep a justice from flipping at the last minute. And so what he I think was saying there too is if it was a justice, it was a justice who was acting with complete, reckless disregard for the lives of
their colleagues. I think to me that suggests a little more was a clerk, because it was clearly a very naive move from someone who did not have a real interest in the institution of the court or even in the safety of the other justices. But you know that maybe that doesn't rule that out.
I think. I hope we know someday, but it might not be for a while yet.
You know, before we go carry, you know, a lot of people, a lot of Americans are facing a lot right now. You know, their minds are on being able to put food on the table, these different issues that are before them. Why is it important for people to be paying attention to maintaining the integrity of the Supreme Court?
Well, whatever other issues you are concerned about, and obviously you know, this is the challenge in a situation where we are right now, where the economy is so bad, people are having a lot of you know, big deal issues, but all of those these problems, Ultimately, if we don't have a functional Supreme Court, we are not going to have that check that's going to keep the constitutional system in place, that's going to make sure that we have a country where you can be, you know, working in safety,
trying to recover our economy. The rule of law is the reason we have We have had a good economy compare it worldwide standards up until now. If we lose that, we're going to lose all of these things. So whatever issue it is that you are really concerned about, you know, whether it's life, whether it's you know, your your right to keep in bear arms, whether it's equal protection, you know, whether it's the overgrowth of the administrative state which gets
into all these different areas. That's what's underlying a lot of these problems. You saw issues with the mandatory COVID masking and vaccines, and you had issues with the with immigration law going you know which every which way you've had immigrations, with the student loan.
Things.
All of these issues are coming back to the court because the court's the one that's making sure the government stays within the boundaries of what the Constitution lays out for it.
So, unfortunately, we can't.
Afford to allow the court to just be to slip into being again an instrument of the left imposing it's it's policies on the country because all of those things are going to go with it if the court's not willing to be a check on the rest of the government. So I think it's still such a key issue, and think about it. You know, President Trump had so many different initiatives who was working on. He had a lot of great executive orders, all this stuff. Those things are
basically wiped out already. The only impact, the biggest impact he had that still remains are the judges and the justices that he put on the court who will be there for a generation. The Left is going crazy about it. That's why we're seeing such a focus. They're so angry at this lasting legacy that we have on the courts, and this is why we need to just keep on focusing on that in the future, because that is one of the most long lasting and impactful things any president
has the opportunity to do. So I'm very grateful we have that, but again President Biden's trying to undo it every day and he's nominating all sorts of crazy people. We just have to try to continue to elect people who will bring us judges and justices who can continue to be that check on our constitutional system.
Well, it's also just really important as we see our liberties and freedoms under attack and we are increasingly living in a chaotic world, we need things like the Supreme Court to maintain order. Otherwise we will go the way of Venezuela and some of these other countries that we've mentioned, which seems to be the dream of the left, but would not be good for anyone listening us. So, Carrie Severino, President of JCN, I appreciate you taking the time to
break down this important issue to the audience. I know you're busy, so I appreciate your time.
Thanks talking to you.
So that was Carrie.
Severino, President of JCN, breaking down this attempt to delegitimize the Court. I mean, we really can't have this happen, as the Supreme Court is really one of the last institutions people have any faith in whatsoever, also pivotal to the rule of law in America. But I appreciate her joining the show. Appreciate you guys as always listening to the show. What do I thank John Cassio and my producer for putting it together every Monday and Thursday.
You can listen throughout the week until next time.