Lawless Supreme Court Finally Getting The Scrutiny It Deserves

The Supreme Court has managed to operate under the radar for decades, if not centuries. They issue rulings, create controversy, and then no one thinks about them again for another year. But the recent scandals involving Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have put the Court's corruption on full display, and the public is sick of it. Farron Cousins explains what's happening.

Listen to our videos in an audio format by subscribing to our podcast

Don't forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected!

Connect with Farron on Twitter

*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos.

This past year has seen a staggering number of really just incredible reports detailing the corruption of some of the justices on the US Supreme Court, specifically Clarence Thomas and all of his little donor trips from cases that he then didn't recuse himself from. And of course, Samuel Alito and his fight with his neighbor, the upside down flag, the neighbor's revelation that the Alito family is lying about everything that happened. And of course, Alito has continued to refuse to recuse himself from any January 6th related case. So people are paying attention, but more importantly, people are getting. And that leads me to another viewer question. This one comes from Power Hound who says, what will it take before any actual checks and balance balances are put in place for the Supreme Court? It feels, you know, it doesn't feel anymore like this. Supreme Court is allowed to do what they want with no consequences.

Some of it feels like it could be resolved by putting term limits on these judges. Term limits is one of my favorite phrases in politics. I love it. I think we need to have it for the House, for the Senate, for judges, not just on the Supreme Court. Any judge anywhere in this country, nobody should be able to do these things for their entire life. Absolutely not. Let's put term limits in place. I'm a hundred percent in favor of that in terms of the checks and balances on the court. I think that's a really good point. We have a system, you know, in quotation marks of checks and balances here in the United States, right? That's what we're told. That's what we're taught in school. You know, this branch checks this one, this one checks this one, this one does this one. But it really doesn't.

It really doesn't because nobody, nobody has control over the United States Supreme Court, other than of course, the Senate having to confirm these people to the court, which I guess they consider that checks and balances beyond that. Nothing, there's not even a code of ethics for judges on the Supreme Court. There is a code of ethics for every other federal judge in the United States, but not an official one for the US Supreme Court. And I guess people would say, but we do have checks and balances. 'cause the House and Senate can impeach 'em. Ha ha ha. Sure. Yeah, I guess so. Right? Good luck with that. You really think you're gonna get 66 members of the Senate, is it 66 or 67? Anyway, one of those numbers. Do you think you're gonna get 66 or 67 members of the Senate to vote to remove a Supreme Court justice? Do you ever think at any point in the foreseeable future, we are going to have one single party having a 16 or 17 point advantage in the US Senate? Again, I don't, I mean, hell, at this point, either

Party would be lucky to have a five seat, 10 seat advantage, you know, 55 to 45. But you're not gonna flip 11 more people to be able to remove a Supreme Court judge. And because of that, that system of checks and balances that is in place isn't actually there because the threshold is so insanely high. And those Supreme Court seats are so heavily guarded by the party that put the people there, that you're never gonna get one party to go with the other, to vote out a judge. It just ain't gonna happen. So we need to amend this. But amendment, you run into the same problem, right? You're gonna have partisan politics at play. You're not gonna have a party that has a majority on the Supreme Court vote to enact tougher standards for the, for that Supreme Court. 'cause then that could lead to their removal.

So there's no checks. What we should have had was an expansion of the United States Supreme Court. When Biden had the house, when Biden had the Senate, we could have done it, could have done it. That is the biggest failure of President Biden. And believe me, as we've seen from their rulings, it's a big failure. Let's not deny that. But he had his little group, the panel, oh, we looked into it and we decided, no, we're not gonna do it. That was a horrible, huge mistake that is now impacting everybody in this country. So we had the chance to do it, had the chance to possibly fix it, and President Biden said, no, we're just not gonna do it.