On Face the Nation, CBS News's chief legal correspondent went after Supreme Court critics as "dangerous." And yet, her court defense was completely lacking in specifics.
I agree 100%. The generalizations are a lot like Scotus’s shadow docket rulings, impossible to have a debate on the merit. I don’t think any serious critic is saying justices are corrupt. But there is definitely unethical behavior. The problem is the majority legal argument is so much weaker than the dissenting opinions. The problem is that the majority does not accept and/or respect the lower court’s fact finding. That is what is placing them in danger of losing acceptance with the public
In a broader sense, the problem is that some Justices simply come across as arrogant. The financial disclosure reports, mandatory under 5 USC §13103(f)(11), (12), have been a frequent flashpoint. Justice Thomas’ occasionally tenuous knowledge of the reporting requirements is an example of how the law — the stuff in the statutes and case reports — can be markedly different from the public’s conception of the law. The information that has to be reported (§13104) isn’t complicated to understand; if someone can interpret the Internal Revenue Code, section 13104 shouldn’t make beads of sweat appear on one’s forehead. But Justice Thomas and the others* act as if the statute is written in Old Norse, and when they’re caught out, the explanations are barely credible. So the public is left thinking that the law is an ass and that the Justices, though caught with their hands in the cookie jar, have thumbed their noses at the law. The Justices, to the public, are just more mind-numbing examples of the culture of grift.
The decisions on the shadow docket this year are yet more examples of judicial arrogance. I’ll simply note that there are plenty of case citations for the proposition that “this Court has frequently noted its reluctance to disturb findings of fact concurred in by two lower courts.” Rogers v. Lodge, 458 US 613, 623 (1982) (citing cases). A blithe disregard for the factual determinations made by the district courts hardly works to inspire confidence in the judicial decision-making process. Americans expect more from the men and women serving on the federal bench.
(Oh, a footnote --) *The foibles of some of the Justices are outlined at 52 Southwestern L. Rev. 308, 314-17 (2023).
I guess it hinges on the definition of corrupt. No, it's unlikely any of them are accepting envelopes of cash for favorable rulings. But Thomas demonstrates most cartoonishly of all how these people benefit from the largess of the ultra-rich, ultra-religious and ultra-conservative — and they don't feel like they're doing favors because they see themselves as part of the club.
Fair enough, most of them were born in that club. Thomas had to ascend to it, so it's a bit more clumsy for him. And Alito's just a jackass.
All that said, it's telling that this court in particular has been whittling away at any broad conception of corruption in cases like Snyder v. United States, so that only the most explicit quid pro quo can be considered corrupt under federal law.
They know what they're doing. They just believe that a certain amount of graft is not only acceptable, but encouraged among the political class.
"I don’t think any serious critic is saying justices are corrupt."
This may be largely true, but it is a common popular notion. She is not purporting to address casual charges of "Oh they're all corrupt," so maybe she's doing the common misattribution of "what I saw on Twitter" to influential liberals.
Weiss discussion is similar. Serious discussion starts with poor decisionmaking, moves to argue for incompetence, spends some time with long-standing bias, then suggests impropriety by laying a few well-known facts next to each other. But to hear conservative defenders tell it, critics are saying...well, she's in the tank for Trump and nothing else. The defenders say that if everyone just thought of her as a vessel of conservative ideals it would all make perfect sense. It's uncanny.
Goodness knows why a conservative would want to defend a body of work including Trump v US by saying "It's just conservatism." I'd think it would reflect poorly.
Ah yes, because the court that gave us Citizens United, SpeechNow, Dobbs, overturned 30 years of precedent by killing Chevron, and is genuflecting to the conservative legal theories that have been built over the last 50 years *explicitly* to accomplish all of this following Row v Wade is totally underreported on and poorly understood. Absolute clown take.
It's really giving "we must honor and respect the office of the presidency" vibes, after the turd show this year has been.
Keep up the great work, we need real journalists like you now more than ever before!
Crawford did impressive work at the Chicago Tribune and her early years at CBS and PBS. Something happened - before the Ellison takeover. As you pointed out, this week’s comments are sad - as legal commentary, as well as for their lack of specifics.
This new loyalty of CBS to both Trump and SCOTUS — have they forgotten how Fix’s loyalty was repaid? Insults, threats and a 3/4 billion dollar settlement.
Yet another example of blaming the victims -- the American people -- for the crimes of the high-born and wealthy. If there is a threat to the rule of law, IT sits in the Oval Office when he's not down in his lair at Mar-A-Lago cutting deals for himself. Before that, Mitch McConnell decided to betray longstanding American presidential values and forbade outgoing President Obama from appointing a Supreme Court Justice to fill the sudden vacancy left by Justice Scalia's death; Trump was able to appoint Neil Gorsuch. Later, McConnell smirked and winked when he suggested that he'd allow President Trump to appoint a conservative if a "sitting member happened to die," knowing full well that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on her deathbed. So, we got Amy Coney Barrett in the fall during a hotly contested presidential election in which Trump was trailing the vote. While not illegal, it certainly was corrupt in spirit and in practice, totally intended to throw the court toward arch-conservative values. We have Justice Thomas and wife openly taking bribes. Might we see Jan Crawford's comments about all that? And, what else is lurking under the court robes? One wonders that Crawford isn't ashamed that she's protecting the Court when it has dirt and probably, by now, blood on its hands. But of course, she now works for oligarchs who love what Trump is doing, as it increases their power, and her colleague Bari Weiss is on her usual hunt to align herself with the powerful no matter how filthy they are. I guess Crawford's outrage must go somewhere other than the mirror. Hell yes! We want to hang onto our rule of law. But it does seem that that stinking pig has left its pen. What is Jan Crawford doing to get that back, what are all journalists doing? Cowering and pointing fingers at people who are telling the truth.
In addition to the infuriating accusations towards those criticizing the court and its lack of ethical guardrails: "This court is functional." Technically, sure. "It is consistent." ?!?!?! Thank you for your coverage.
I watched that episode Sunday. After Crawford's bit, I told myself everyone is running scared at CBS News, presumably due to Bari Weiss' behavior. Get in line is the message from the executive floor at CBS, because no one can dismiss the High Court's favorable decisions for Trump on the Shadow Docket, overruling Appeal Courts decisions with little explanation.
Jan Crawford, now, demonstrates that she is a part of the corruption. Lobbing generalized assaults and defending a Court that denigrates the lower courts and refuses to explain its rulings (other Brett Kavanaugh's absurd concurring opinion in the CA immigration case and attempted "walk-back" in the IL case ) reflects poorly on her as an unbiased journalist. So much for her credibility.
Crawford has no credibility and is absolutely parroting rightwing bullshit all thoroughly approved by her filthy rich, fascist new owners. Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have all been showered with "gifts," various trips, lucrative real estate transactions, and much more particularly in Thomas' case. There have also been issues with certain justices failure to recuse in sensitive cases such as Alito's failure to recuse in 2020 election cases, as well as trump's immunity case. And not just Alito. Thomas' corruption has been thoroughly exposed. As well as Ginni Thomas's involvement in the January 6 insurrection, all completely covered up. There's been so much corruption with this court that the stench has even seeped into occasional mainstream reporting. Instead of upholding the constitution they have been destroying it. The most glaring treasonous, corrupt act of all was the scotus six giving criminal trump substantial presidential immunity on July 1, 2024. And they have been rubber stamping the lawless trump and his destruction of Congress and institutional norms ever since he was reinstalled as potus. Unfortunately, the CBS that once existed is now dead.
A-f**king-men. What a load of pearl-clutching bullshit completely unbecoming of someone allegedly responsible for reporting on the Supreme Court - or any court, for that matter.
Well, what other defense can be available, for a court majority that so often and so consistently ignores fact, law, precedent, reality, plain justice, and the compelling dictates of reason?
To enforce pre-conceived bias, there can only be strings of words, plain nonsense — irrational, free of fact, wholly arbitrary.
I agree 100%. The generalizations are a lot like Scotus’s shadow docket rulings, impossible to have a debate on the merit. I don’t think any serious critic is saying justices are corrupt. But there is definitely unethical behavior. The problem is the majority legal argument is so much weaker than the dissenting opinions. The problem is that the majority does not accept and/or respect the lower court’s fact finding. That is what is placing them in danger of losing acceptance with the public
In a broader sense, the problem is that some Justices simply come across as arrogant. The financial disclosure reports, mandatory under 5 USC §13103(f)(11), (12), have been a frequent flashpoint. Justice Thomas’ occasionally tenuous knowledge of the reporting requirements is an example of how the law — the stuff in the statutes and case reports — can be markedly different from the public’s conception of the law. The information that has to be reported (§13104) isn’t complicated to understand; if someone can interpret the Internal Revenue Code, section 13104 shouldn’t make beads of sweat appear on one’s forehead. But Justice Thomas and the others* act as if the statute is written in Old Norse, and when they’re caught out, the explanations are barely credible. So the public is left thinking that the law is an ass and that the Justices, though caught with their hands in the cookie jar, have thumbed their noses at the law. The Justices, to the public, are just more mind-numbing examples of the culture of grift.
The decisions on the shadow docket this year are yet more examples of judicial arrogance. I’ll simply note that there are plenty of case citations for the proposition that “this Court has frequently noted its reluctance to disturb findings of fact concurred in by two lower courts.” Rogers v. Lodge, 458 US 613, 623 (1982) (citing cases). A blithe disregard for the factual determinations made by the district courts hardly works to inspire confidence in the judicial decision-making process. Americans expect more from the men and women serving on the federal bench.
(Oh, a footnote --) *The foibles of some of the Justices are outlined at 52 Southwestern L. Rev. 308, 314-17 (2023).
I guess it hinges on the definition of corrupt. No, it's unlikely any of them are accepting envelopes of cash for favorable rulings. But Thomas demonstrates most cartoonishly of all how these people benefit from the largess of the ultra-rich, ultra-religious and ultra-conservative — and they don't feel like they're doing favors because they see themselves as part of the club.
Fair enough, most of them were born in that club. Thomas had to ascend to it, so it's a bit more clumsy for him. And Alito's just a jackass.
All that said, it's telling that this court in particular has been whittling away at any broad conception of corruption in cases like Snyder v. United States, so that only the most explicit quid pro quo can be considered corrupt under federal law.
They know what they're doing. They just believe that a certain amount of graft is not only acceptable, but encouraged among the political class.
"I don’t think any serious critic is saying justices are corrupt."
This may be largely true, but it is a common popular notion. She is not purporting to address casual charges of "Oh they're all corrupt," so maybe she's doing the common misattribution of "what I saw on Twitter" to influential liberals.
Weiss discussion is similar. Serious discussion starts with poor decisionmaking, moves to argue for incompetence, spends some time with long-standing bias, then suggests impropriety by laying a few well-known facts next to each other. But to hear conservative defenders tell it, critics are saying...well, she's in the tank for Trump and nothing else. The defenders say that if everyone just thought of her as a vessel of conservative ideals it would all make perfect sense. It's uncanny.
Goodness knows why a conservative would want to defend a body of work including Trump v US by saying "It's just conservatism." I'd think it would reflect poorly.
Ah yes, because the court that gave us Citizens United, SpeechNow, Dobbs, overturned 30 years of precedent by killing Chevron, and is genuflecting to the conservative legal theories that have been built over the last 50 years *explicitly* to accomplish all of this following Row v Wade is totally underreported on and poorly understood. Absolute clown take.
It's really giving "we must honor and respect the office of the presidency" vibes, after the turd show this year has been.
Keep up the great work, we need real journalists like you now more than ever before!
Crawford did impressive work at the Chicago Tribune and her early years at CBS and PBS. Something happened - before the Ellison takeover. As you pointed out, this week’s comments are sad - as legal commentary, as well as for their lack of specifics.
Looks like scared to lose their job and comfortable middle class life style. What else could explain the lying and deceit
This new loyalty of CBS to both Trump and SCOTUS — have they forgotten how Fix’s loyalty was repaid? Insults, threats and a 3/4 billion dollar settlement.
Well spoken retort!
Option 1: Speaking truth to power
Option 2: sycophancy
Yet another example of blaming the victims -- the American people -- for the crimes of the high-born and wealthy. If there is a threat to the rule of law, IT sits in the Oval Office when he's not down in his lair at Mar-A-Lago cutting deals for himself. Before that, Mitch McConnell decided to betray longstanding American presidential values and forbade outgoing President Obama from appointing a Supreme Court Justice to fill the sudden vacancy left by Justice Scalia's death; Trump was able to appoint Neil Gorsuch. Later, McConnell smirked and winked when he suggested that he'd allow President Trump to appoint a conservative if a "sitting member happened to die," knowing full well that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on her deathbed. So, we got Amy Coney Barrett in the fall during a hotly contested presidential election in which Trump was trailing the vote. While not illegal, it certainly was corrupt in spirit and in practice, totally intended to throw the court toward arch-conservative values. We have Justice Thomas and wife openly taking bribes. Might we see Jan Crawford's comments about all that? And, what else is lurking under the court robes? One wonders that Crawford isn't ashamed that she's protecting the Court when it has dirt and probably, by now, blood on its hands. But of course, she now works for oligarchs who love what Trump is doing, as it increases their power, and her colleague Bari Weiss is on her usual hunt to align herself with the powerful no matter how filthy they are. I guess Crawford's outrage must go somewhere other than the mirror. Hell yes! We want to hang onto our rule of law. But it does seem that that stinking pig has left its pen. What is Jan Crawford doing to get that back, what are all journalists doing? Cowering and pointing fingers at people who are telling the truth.
Agree. And I can’t help but wonder if this is the “new CBS.”
In addition to the infuriating accusations towards those criticizing the court and its lack of ethical guardrails: "This court is functional." Technically, sure. "It is consistent." ?!?!?! Thank you for your coverage.
I watched that episode Sunday. After Crawford's bit, I told myself everyone is running scared at CBS News, presumably due to Bari Weiss' behavior. Get in line is the message from the executive floor at CBS, because no one can dismiss the High Court's favorable decisions for Trump on the Shadow Docket, overruling Appeal Courts decisions with little explanation.
Jan Crawford, now, demonstrates that she is a part of the corruption. Lobbing generalized assaults and defending a Court that denigrates the lower courts and refuses to explain its rulings (other Brett Kavanaugh's absurd concurring opinion in the CA immigration case and attempted "walk-back" in the IL case ) reflects poorly on her as an unbiased journalist. So much for her credibility.
Crawford has no credibility and is absolutely parroting rightwing bullshit all thoroughly approved by her filthy rich, fascist new owners. Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have all been showered with "gifts," various trips, lucrative real estate transactions, and much more particularly in Thomas' case. There have also been issues with certain justices failure to recuse in sensitive cases such as Alito's failure to recuse in 2020 election cases, as well as trump's immunity case. And not just Alito. Thomas' corruption has been thoroughly exposed. As well as Ginni Thomas's involvement in the January 6 insurrection, all completely covered up. There's been so much corruption with this court that the stench has even seeped into occasional mainstream reporting. Instead of upholding the constitution they have been destroying it. The most glaring treasonous, corrupt act of all was the scotus six giving criminal trump substantial presidential immunity on July 1, 2024. And they have been rubber stamping the lawless trump and his destruction of Congress and institutional norms ever since he was reinstalled as potus. Unfortunately, the CBS that once existed is now dead.
"If you have to insist that you're the king, you're not the king."
A-f**king-men. What a load of pearl-clutching bullshit completely unbecoming of someone allegedly responsible for reporting on the Supreme Court - or any court, for that matter.
Yeah, I agree it looks to me like she’s trying to keep her job. . . by not doing her job.
CBS doesn’t want reporters any more, they want propagandists, and it looks like they found one.
Well, what other defense can be available, for a court majority that so often and so consistently ignores fact, law, precedent, reality, plain justice, and the compelling dictates of reason?
To enforce pre-conceived bias, there can only be strings of words, plain nonsense — irrational, free of fact, wholly arbitrary.