Texas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett is about to drop a truth bomb on the comically corrupt Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Listen. Clarence Thomas is corrupt. End of story. I mean, nobody gets this kind of money and isn’t influenced in any way. That is where we stand. And that is why the American public is outraged at this court right now because of the likes of Clarence Thomas.

But it’s about time in repro to the Supreme Court. Tying in guns to the Supreme Court, tying in diversity, equity and inclusion to the Supreme Court, LGBTQ as well as climate change. All of these issues, when we see the decimation of them there at the hands of this rogue court, tying. In real world issues that affect voters directly to the actions of members of the Supreme Court is exactly why Crockett has become a favorite.

She is indeed one of the most promising congresspersons currently in office. Crockett tells it like it is, including that it’s extremely easy to buy and sell anyone involved in politics. And by now we know certain Scotus justices are not above it. Justice Thomas has been living his best unearned life for years.

His multi-million dollar grift is as morally bankrupt as they come, and a recent Hill article they compiled data by Fix the Court. Since 2004, Thomas has accepted more than $4 million in gifts. They believe Thomas accepted nearly 200 gifts, but only reported 27 while he’s been wined and dined by a powerful Republican billionaire.

Consider what influence at the highest levels means to your life. We can’t pretend the gun lobby and gun manufacturers did not influence the Supreme Court’s bump stock decision. Crockett has been sounding the alarm on Supreme Court corruption for months now. But this interview it comes on the heels of a scathing Democratic House Oversight Committee meeting pushing for stricter and more robust ethics guidelines for justices.

One of the. Things that we have heard over and over and over, especially this term, is this idea of a two tiered justice system. We have heard that term used. I don’t know how many times we. Suspect there is a two tier justice system in the United States. For Trump supporters that are charged for January 6th and letting catch and release, it’s basically catch and release for Antifa and BLM rioters that have rioted and destroyed cities and hurt businesses and looted.

They actively pursue individuals based on their ideological beliefs, specifically targeting Donald Trump, who posed a significant threat to the political left. Some describe this as a two tier system of justice, but what it really is, it’s a system deliberately and systematically prosecute individuals within the Trump orbit due to their hatred for President Trump.

I think the biggest lesson, Steve, is that Donald Trump has exposed the flank of the deep state and their number one weapon, which has been a two tier system of justice, the lawfare that they have utilized to try to kneecap President Trump and unconstitutionally imprison him and keep him off the campaign trail, is actually backfiring due to Trump’s genius and his ability to relay to everyday Americans that this two tier system of justice is sponsored by the Deep State is a reality.

It is not a right wing conspiracy theory and they are coming for everyday Americans. Freedoms prove there’s no shame comes in the way of MAGA absurdly claiming there’s a two tiered system of justice in our country that somehow disenfranchizes them. Trump supporters just look at January 6th, the ones that were caught, and let’s stop pretending that so many were.

They didn’t get sentences that rose to the level of insurrection and not all express remorse. Even joining that off key J six choir. It’s a joke if you’re privileged in America, black and brown folks certainly aren’t laughing. Even members of Trump’s administration who rode the racism, Covid spreading, misogynistic train have faced not merely public rebuke.

In fact, members of the media are paying them on The View, CNN and other networks as pundits, hair makeup, glam, Trump experts. What the hell do they need to explain to us? We watched it in real time. We lived it. The bar is so low for some starting to see what they mean about unfairness. Would you agree with me that there is some form of ethics that is in place for our lower courts that somehow is absent from our High Court? – That is correct. – That is correct.

In the case of what has been laid out by so many of my colleagues as it relates to potential conflicts, because your wife is potentially one of the perpetrators of January 6th, or one of the planners of, of, of January 6th. And also, obviously, we’ve dealt with the upside down flags that are a sign of solidarity with those same January 6th defendants.

What type of recourse do we have when there is a conflict that exists? And this is and when I say conflict, I just want to be very real about this. There are people that have never been anywhere near a law school that are saying even a blind man can see there’s an obvious conflict, but what is the recourse on the Supreme Court? Is there a recourse on the Supreme Court when a justice decides that they are not going to recuse themselves from what seems to be a very obvious conflict? – At the moment there is not. – Okay.

So I agree that there may be some sort of a two tier justice system that is playing out in our country. But it seems like the two tiered justice system is inuring to the benefit of the highest court in the land, from what I can ascertain. Obviously, we’re not doing this in a full committee hearing because the people that are running the madhouse right now, are not here for it.

But we are, because we believe in law and order and overall rule of law. And so when we talk about things such as expanding the court, is there a history in this country of expanding the Supreme Court? There is. It has been done by Congress. It has been done by Congress at least seven different times, and the last time was in 1869.

Now, I know that this isn’t necessarily your area of expertise, but would you agree with me that this country has grown just a little bit since 1869? The population has considerably increased. Yes. Okay. So we can agree on that. It may make sense to do that. In addition to that, you know, as someone who’s practiced in state court and federal court.

Term limits exist in some form in a number of state court systems, but we don’t have it on the federal level. You know, can you explain to us how potentially imposing term limits on the Supreme Court, could allow for hopefully, some of the harm that we see coming through the court, some of the terrible influence to hopefully finally make its way out of the court.

Term limits for the court, would, among other things, allow for a regular, schedule of vacancies so that the court is not driven by the random fact of who the president is at a time when a vacancy emerges. And it would take away, or maybe not entirely take away, but make far less creditable, the effort that was done to stop merrick Garland and install, Justice Gorsuch in his place.

So it would make it far more regular and ordinary, and it would make it more difficult for Partizan justices to time their departure from the court to make sure that their party gets to fill the vacancy. They claim to be completely apolitical, but they seem to try to clear out in the presidency of their own party.

– So absolutely. – Thank you so much. And someone forgot. Crockett is a lawyer. I rise today to introduce articles of impeachment against Associate justices of the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. Bad news is that we have a rogue court that has been captured by special interests, and that is over and over again in appalling pattern, continuing to follow the direction of the billionaires in the front group through which they operate.

The good news is that the public is fed up. Congress is fed up mostly, and the Judicial Conference is beginning to tighten up the rules on the Supreme Court. Justices Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse has been ringing the alarm on the corruption of the Supreme Court and our desperate need to wrangle in their unchecked power, namely, the infamous Clarence Thomas.

The court has. Done its best to prevent the American people from fighting back through the democratic process. It’s made it harder for ordinary people to vote, while making it easier for billionaires and deep pocketed special interests to impose their will on the American people with unlimited amounts of dark money.

How did we get here? A decades long scheme, led by creepy billionaires and backed by a deluge of dark money, captured the court like some crooked 19th century railroad commission. This court capture operation was not cheap. The latest estimate put it at more than $580 million. And that’s a minimum. That money flowed in from creepy billionaires laundered through right wing front groups like the Federalist Society and Judicial Crisis Network, where the donors, the real donors, could hide their identities behind

the front groups doing their dirty work. This dark, money funded full scale campaigns to stack the Supreme Court with justices who would deliver for the billionaires. Leo and his cronies also orchestrated a secret gifts program for their amenable justices, keeping them happy with lavish gifts of luxury vacations and other high value freebies.

Despite a clear federal ethics law requiring Supreme Court justices to disclose even small gifts. These justices kept hidden years of free private jet travel, free yacht trips, free tickets to sporting events, even for one justice, $260,000 of loan forgiveness for a luxury motor coach. Justices have flouted the federal law requiring recusal from cases where they have a conflict of interest.

Justice Thomas sat on cases involving efforts to overturn the 2020 election, despite his wife’s involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. This is exactly what we’re talking about when we say that money has to get out of politics. In any other scenario, with one party receiving something of value from another party under the condition that the first party will follow the second party’s command, that would be called bribery and corruption.

But in our political system, it’s called gifting or donating, because the real power brokers, the billionaires and the broader ultra rich class need to soften the language and normalize the practice to avoid public outcry. And thus stay in their position of power. The Supreme Court now stands alone in all of government, free from any fact finding about ethical misconduct.

As a result, the court’s legitimacy in the eyes of the American people is now at an all time low and falling. The Supreme Court needs a binding, enforceable code of conduct. The Supreme Court should not violate one of the most basic principles of the law. Nemo judex in sua causa. No one should be a judge in their own cause.

Yes, that is a principle so old and so venerated that it is in Latin, and they violate it nonstop. The justices of the Supreme Court should have ethics rules, at least as strict as the other branches of government, with a real process for finding out what happened and holding miscreants accountable and overwhelmingly Americans agree.

While it is difficult weeding out corruption in the Supreme Court and all levels of government is very achievable, it just takes the right people in positions of power to be motivated to do so. My bill would also impose stricter disclosure of gifts, justice receive enhance existing recusal laws, and require the flotillas of phony front groups who lobby the court through friend of the court briefs to disclose their actual funders and connections.

Democrats stand ready and willing to deliver on President Biden’s and Vice President Harris’s goal of bringing real transparency and accountability to the Supreme Court. President Biden and Vice President Harris also announced their support for 18 year term limits for Supreme Court justices, with new appointments to the court occurring every two years that would counter the Republican Supreme Court justices penchant for strategically timed retirements that tipped the court into Republican hands.

Term limits are a common sense proposal with long bipartisan support. Supreme court justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, have expressed support for term limits. Even some of our Republican colleagues have endorsed the idea, and a Fox News poll earlier this month showed that this idea has support from more than 75% of Americans.

Vice President Harris, a former member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, herself, has echoed the president’s calls for reform. Both the president and the vice president have immense respect for our Supreme Court and for a strong and independent judiciary. They’ve demonstrated it through their lifetimes, and that is exactly why we should listen to them when they tell us that the time has come for reform at the Supreme Court.