Clarence Thomas makes STUNNING new announcement

Okay, it looks like all pretense of. impartiality has been dropped by. Clarence Thomas on the US Supreme Court. because of what he did just did. Glenn, can you explain what it was that. Clarence Thomas just decided to come out. and say? >> Yeah, Brian, just when you thought the. corruption at the Supreme Court couldn't. get any worse, Clarence Thomas has. outdone himself. He actually went on. Senator Ted Cruz's podcast, and here's. what he said, and I do not want to. misquote him. So, he told Ted Cruz,

"You're one of the people who actually. stands up, particularly at times when. others seem to wither, and I appreciate. it," Thomas said in the opening minutes. of Monday's episode of Verdict with Ted. Cruz. He added, "And more personally, when we, my wife and I, were under. attack for obvious reasons, you and Mike. Lee and some of the other friends would. stand up." And Thomas said, "I really.

appreciate that." He basically heaped. praise and appreciation. on Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and his other, quote, friends. For what? For having his. back, including when, you know, his wife. was getting considerable criticism for, I don't know, trying to overturn the. results of the 2020 presidential. election. Brian, you know, justices and. judges, all federal court judges, but.

particularly Supreme Court justices, are. supposed to show no partiality, no. partisanship, particularly political. partisanship. And not only is it. important and part of the judicial code. of ethics, which I know are only. discretionary, they're mere suggestions. to Supreme Court justices, but they are. mandatory for all other federal court. judges. You should not only actually be.

partial to one side or another, to one. political party or another, you should. show no actual partisanship. You have to. avoid even the appearance of. partisanship. And when he is lavishing. praise and thanks on Senator Ted Cruz. and Mike Lee and his other friends, presumably other senators, for standing. up for him when, you know, he was. getting considerable criticism thrown at. him for what? Well, let's remind our.

viewers. Taking a quarter of a. million-dollar mobile home from a. Republican billionaire donor, having his. mother's home renovated on the dime of, oh, a Republican billionaire donor, having his de facto son, I believe a. nephew who he was raising as a son, put. through private school, yes, on the dime. once again of a Republican billionaire. donor. All pretense of impartiality.

and of an absence of actual partisanship. is out the window. And Clarence Thomas. has rendered himself as, you know, being. beholden to whom? The Republicans in the. Senate. And how many politically charged. cases are before the Supreme Court, particularly in the age of Trump, where, you know, the Democrats are on one side. of a legal issue that the Supreme Court. is is asked to decide, the Republicans. and the Republican Party are on the.

other side. Now, we know who Clarence. Thomas's {quote} friends are, the people. who had his back when times got tough. for him. And to pretend that the. American people will view him as a. legitimate broker of the facts, the law, and the Constitution in those kind of. politically charged disputes is plain. old laughable. >> A quick note for those who are watching. right now. If you'd like to continue to. stay on top of our legal analysis, the. best way to do that is to subscribe to.

both of our channels. I'm going to put. both of those links in the post. description of this video. So, if you'd. like to support our work, uh like to. support independent media, best way to. do that again is to subscribe. Glenn, it's worth asking here. if this was not this Supreme Court, if. you had a regular judge who had come out. and said something, and by a regular. judge I mean uh uh a district court. judge, an appeals judge, a a state court. whatever it may be, anything other than. the Supreme Court, which of course. doesn't have to abide by any code of. ethics and is accountable to nobody. Um. if you had a judge come out and.

basically broadcast. their political or partisan affiliation. with people who, as you said, have uh. legal interests in front of the court, what would have to happen to those. judges? >> They would be referred for an ethics. investigation to one of the many. organizations, both state and federal, that oversee allegations of judicial. misconduct like a a lack of. impartiality. And, you know, in this instance, what I.

am really hopeful of, Brian, is that if, or I should say when, the Dems take. control of the House after the midterms, they actually conduct the kind of. investigations and inquiries that are. long overdue. Particularly, Brian, that. sort of list of horribles I just laid. out about Clarence Thomas accepting. these lavish gifts from Republican. billionaires. Um these are things that. he was required to report on federal.

financial disclosure forms. Let me tell. you, as a career fed, I had to fill them. out every year, and they're the bane of. our existence. They're very tedious. Um. they're you know, they're very. detail-oriented. I was always afraid I. was going to put a decimal point in the. wrong place, so maybe I only disclosed a. dollar when I should have disclosed $10. And here you have Clarence Thomas raking. in all kinds of money. I would call them. kind of in-kind contributions from these.

Republican billionaires and failing. under the federal law to report it. What. was his defense? People may remember he. said, "Well, some of my colleagues told. me I didn't have to." Well, you know. what, sport? You're a Supreme Court. justice. You really should know what the. law requires you to do. >> What's worth asking here, Glenn, recognizing that this Supreme Court is. not going to change. These Supreme Court. justices are not going to alter their. behavior. They're certainly not going to. be pushed into altering their behavior. or reforming their behavior by a.

Republican Party that is swimming in. corruption. And so, if and when. Democrats take full control of. government, what needs to happen? What. kind of reforms need to be put in place. uh to to ensure that this kind of stuff. doesn't happen anymore? >> Ryan, a couple of reforms and then. congressional action. What reforms um. are necessary? Well, you know, there are. only nine people who are federal. government employees who operate in an. ethics-free zone. They have no code of.

ethics or code of conduct that governs. them that is mandatory. And you know, when there is an alleged violation, it. that that it can be investigated. There's a mechanism to investigate it. The Supreme Court justices are literally. not just above the law, but they are. above having to act ethically in. everything they do. So, you know, one of. the first things is we need to um put in. place a mandatory code of ethics that. has an enforcement mechanism, that has a.

body to investigate allegation of. Supreme Court justice misconduct, and. there need to be remedies, just like for. all of the the lower court judges, the. federal trial court judges, the many. judges on the courts of appeals around. the country, they operate under a. mandatory code of ethics and they can be. held accountable for ethical. transgressions. The same thing needs to. be put in place for Supreme Court. Justices. You know, the other thing that.

is a big ticket item. in my book, there should be impeachment. inquiries by the by Congress. Listen, Congress has oversight responsibility. over the other two branches of. government. They're supposed to serve as. a check against executive branch abuse, crime, corruption, criminality. They're. supposed to serve as a check over the. judiciary when the judiciary, you know, begins to behave like our corrupt and. illegitimate Supreme Court majority has.

been behaving. And you know, what you. have to do There are people who are. going to say, Brian, well, you know, you'll probably never get articles of. impeachment voted out of the house. Or. if you do, you'll probably never get a. conviction of a corrupt, unethical. Supreme Court Justice in a Senate trial. To which I say, you know what? You don't. leap right to the conclusion, the. suspected conclusion, and be defeatist. about it. You follow You actually follow.

the facts and the law. And if the facts. show that Justice Thomas engaged in. misconduct by, for example, betraying, you know, abject partiality. in favor of his quote friends, the. Senate Republicans, and if he engages in. misconduct by failing to report out on. financial disclosure forms, all these. lavish gifts from Republican. billionaires, well, then you open an.

impeachment inquiry. You call witnesses. You subpoena documents, including. financial records. and then, you know, you you follow the evidence wherever it. leads. It sure looks like, Brian, it. would lead to articles of impeachment. And regardless of what the results are, whether they get voted out of the house, whether there was is a trial and a. conviction or an acquittal in the. Senate, is really less important than. actually using the the mechanisms of.

government that we have to hold corrupt. um corrupt government officials in any. branch accountable, but particularly. corrupt judges and justices. >> And I would just add, and this is. something I spoke about at length uh. with my with my book The Day After, we. also have to expand the Supreme Court. Like we know how this Supreme Court, this six-block conservative justice on. the Supreme Court is going to act. Um we. know the environment that they've been. steeped in and the way that they think. that they need to comport themselves,

which is to say without any rules, without any uh uh bearing on on how. corrupt their actions look. And so the. only way to fix that, recognizing how. these people operate, is to expand the. court. And there is no constitutional uh. mandate that there that there exist nine. Supreme Court justices. For throughout. the entirety of American history, the. number of Supreme Court justices has. always comported with the number of. federal court circuits. It was that way. all up until the 1900s, and then. suddenly, when there grew to 13 federal.

court circuits, we stayed with nine. Supreme Court justices. So that number. needs to expand. There's there's a a. historical impetus for that number to to. stand, and there's also a moral. imperative for us to raise the number of. Supreme Court justices, recognizing that. if Americans do the work of electing. Democrats to the House, Senate, and. White House, giving them a mandate to. actually pass progressive legislation, we cannot leave in place a rogue branch. of government answerable to the. Republican Party that can and will.

strike down any and all progressive. legislation if it doesn't comport with. their ideological agenda. And so, every. way you look at it, we have an. imperative right now, as soon as. Democrats take control to expand the. Supreme Court. >> Yeah, I absolutely agree, and 13 seems. like a number that would account for the. increased population, the increase in. the number of federal. federal judicial circuits, an increase. in the case load in all of the courts, trial courts, courts of appeals, and up.

at the Supreme Court. And as you say, you know, nine is not a magic number. It's not a constitutionally mandated. number. We've had as few as five Supreme. Court justices and as many as 10 in our. nation's history. But can I just cap it. off with this because I want to use. Clarence Thomas's own words against him. There is actually this norm, this. tradition that highlights the need to. show absolutely no partiality or. partisanship. People may have noticed if. they've watched State of the Union.

addresses that those Supreme Court. justices that choose to attend sit there. stoic and stone-faced. You know, all of. the politicians are jumping up sometimes. looking like fools, clapping and. yelling, you know, or you know, betraying their partisanship, and the. Supreme Court justices sit there. stone-faced. In fact, Brian, there are. many Supreme Court justices who have. refused, some of them for decades, to. even attend. State of the Union addresses because.

they don't want to give the appearance. that they are even tacitly supporting. the party that's in power, the president. who's giving the speech. And you know, some might say, "Well, maybe Clarence. Thomas doesn't know about the tradition. of being completely impartial and. showing absolutely no partisanship at. State of the Union addresses or. elsewhere." And yet, let's see what. Clarence Thomas said in 2006. He said he has explicitly stated that he.

stopped attending State of the Union. addresses because it has {quote} become. so partisan and is very uncomfortable. for a judge to sit there adding that you. know, it looks like a partisan pep rally. and goodness gracious. He doesn't want. to you know, betray any partisanship. Does he as he lavishes praise and thanks. on his Republican Senate friends. Come. on. >> Yeah, I think that's the perfect place. to leave off. Again, for those who are.

watching right now, if you'd like to. stay on top of all legal news, the best. way to do that is to subscribe to both. of our channels. I'm going to put those. links right here on the screen and also. in the post description of this video. If you'd like to support our work, that's the best way to do so. I'm Brian. Tyler Cohen. >> And I'm Glenn Kirschner. >> You're watching the legal breakdown.