WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.200 --> 00:00:06.200
Today, we're diving into a controversy
swirling around the Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

2
00:00:06.519 --> 00:00:13.080
Again. Recently, Rolling Stone obtained
a recording that reveals Alito's candid thoughts

3
00:00:13.160 --> 00:00:18.280
on political polarization, the role of
the Supreme Court, and his views on

4
00:00:18.359 --> 00:00:24.640
America's moral compass. Alito's comments shed
light on his firm stance within the Court's

5
00:00:25.600 --> 00:00:33.000
conservative faction, a star contrast to
Chief Justice John roberts more measured responses at

6
00:00:33.039 --> 00:00:39.320
the same event. Will explore what
these revelations mean for the judiciary impartiality and

7
00:00:39.840 --> 00:00:45.880
the broader implications for American democracy.
Stay tuned as we unpack this judicial drama

8
00:00:46.159 --> 00:00:51.920
and its potential impact on the future
on the Supreme Court. The story is

9
00:00:51.960 --> 00:00:58.079
from The Rolling Stone by Tessa Stewart
and Tom Dickson on June tenth, twenty

10
00:00:58.320 --> 00:01:03.040
twenty four, Sindy, I'm coming
to you. How does a little describe

11
00:01:03.319 --> 00:01:11.680
the possibility of compromise between opposing political
sides? Uh? He said that the

12
00:01:11.680 --> 00:01:18.799
the views cannot be complement complimentary.
He said that it's just there is a

13
00:01:18.879 --> 00:01:25.959
rift that cannot be repaired. And
I think that's true. I mean conservatism,

14
00:01:26.599 --> 00:01:32.959
especially the conservatism we see in the
US, it's so far removed from

15
00:01:33.000 --> 00:01:42.000
reality that it cannot be crossed by
by any any political movement. So yeah,

16
00:01:42.040 --> 00:01:46.040
on on that note, I think
he's he's right, but it's on

17
00:01:46.040 --> 00:01:51.599
the wrong side of history, and
he's trying to uh to keep on the

18
00:01:51.680 --> 00:02:00.280
books ideas and and laws that are
just not relevant anymore. And and that

19
00:02:00.280 --> 00:02:06.480
that stems from a way deeper issue
that the US has. And I speak

20
00:02:06.840 --> 00:02:10.879
as a French person who who well, I'm not going I saw them,

21
00:02:10.919 --> 00:02:16.319
but I know that we had our
constitution rewritten. I don't I think it's

22
00:02:16.360 --> 00:02:23.520
twelve or thirteen times the idea that
you can rule a country with two hundred

23
00:02:23.800 --> 00:02:29.840
and more set of laws. It's
just stupid. And so you have this

24
00:02:30.319 --> 00:02:35.639
very old set of rules and then
you have this body that's supposed to interpret

25
00:02:35.680 --> 00:02:42.759
it regarding our current society, and
that just doesn't work. You guys,

26
00:02:42.840 --> 00:02:46.680
need to rewrite your constitution. There's
no way around it. Well, I

27
00:02:46.719 --> 00:02:54.400
think that one of the things that
we discussed on previous nonprofit episodes was and

28
00:02:54.439 --> 00:02:59.560
we also bring it up constantly,
and I think that's one of the reasons

29
00:02:59.599 --> 00:03:04.280
why we here, Why we are
here is talk about separation of church and

30
00:03:04.319 --> 00:03:09.680
state, even though that those specific
words are not written in the Constitution,

31
00:03:10.560 --> 00:03:20.240
Thomas Jefferson did write that the establishment
clause was specifically about building a wall to

32
00:03:20.319 --> 00:03:25.759
separate church and state. And as
our the United States have evolved, especially

33
00:03:25.800 --> 00:03:31.439
since we are more of a macrocosm
of multiple cultures, religion, and government.

34
00:03:32.199 --> 00:03:36.520
So I think that one of the
things that we have to keep in

35
00:03:36.599 --> 00:03:42.159
mind is that the Supreme Court and
of themselves, are supposed to be impartial.

36
00:03:42.639 --> 00:03:50.680
They're supposed to rule based on secular
principles, not principles based on their

37
00:03:50.800 --> 00:03:53.199
belief systems. At least, it's
not supposed to be the thing that kind

38
00:03:53.199 --> 00:03:58.479
of rules them. And one of
the things that we have seen, specifically

39
00:03:58.520 --> 00:04:01.639
from Alito over and over again,
is that that is not the case.

40
00:04:02.000 --> 00:04:09.000
It seems like that he has a
very hard time being able to separate his

41
00:04:09.159 --> 00:04:15.199
religious beliefs from the way that he's
supposed to interpret secular law. But even

42
00:04:15.240 --> 00:04:23.959
though that we have a what six's three majority of conservatism on the Court,

43
00:04:24.279 --> 00:04:29.480
it seems like that Chief Justice Roberts
had a very different stance, as

44
00:04:29.480 --> 00:04:33.800
I talked about in the beginning of
the show. So we know that Windsor,

45
00:04:34.199 --> 00:04:44.439
who was an activist that pretended to
be a conservative, right wing religious

46
00:04:44.720 --> 00:04:50.839
Catholic activists came to both Roberts and
also to Alito and asked him pretty much

47
00:04:50.839 --> 00:04:56.480
similar questions about you know, how
they rule certain things and also the importance

48
00:04:57.000 --> 00:05:01.360
of keeping religious beliefs in the way
that you kind of look at law.

49
00:05:01.839 --> 00:05:04.560
And Alito was like, yeah,
I agree with you, that should be

50
00:05:04.600 --> 00:05:11.759
definitely the thing. But Chief Justice
was a bit different. Jimmy tell us

51
00:05:11.839 --> 00:05:16.000
about you know what your thoughts were. That was such in stark contrast of

52
00:05:16.079 --> 00:05:20.879
Alito when it came to when Justice
Roberts was asked about the same question,

53
00:05:21.079 --> 00:05:27.480
was asked the same questions. Well, Justice Roberts being somebody that maintains pretty

54
00:05:27.519 --> 00:05:33.439
much an ideology that I don't endorse
or subscribe to, was very refreshing in

55
00:05:33.480 --> 00:05:36.680
his response. I have to say, because that's exactly the kind of thing

56
00:05:36.720 --> 00:05:42.399
that we're looking for from a Supreme
Court justice that is supposed to be impartial

57
00:05:42.720 --> 00:05:47.120
and objective and does not have any
preconceived biases, at least on display.

58
00:05:47.920 --> 00:05:51.319
And that's not what we got from
Justice Alito. So you take the two

59
00:05:51.399 --> 00:05:58.120
responses from both of these Supreme Court
justices and one was talking about Alito first

60
00:05:58.360 --> 00:06:00.879
saying that there's nothing that we can
do to fix this country. We have

61
00:06:00.959 --> 00:06:06.519
to legislate based on religion, and
we have to legislate based on the current

62
00:06:06.920 --> 00:06:12.600
status quo of conservative politics. On
the other hand, Chief Justice Roberts feels

63
00:06:12.759 --> 00:06:17.600
completely the opposite and feels as if
it's his job, or every Supreme Court

64
00:06:17.680 --> 00:06:23.560
justice's job, to be impartial and
to be objective and to take things as

65
00:06:23.600 --> 00:06:27.680
they come. You shouldn't have a
ruling already in mind about a case that

66
00:06:27.680 --> 00:06:30.160
has not come across your desk yet. And that's the kind of response that

67
00:06:30.560 --> 00:06:36.800
Chief Justice Roberts alluded to by saying
that we have to be impartial. Justice

68
00:06:36.800 --> 00:06:42.040
Alito did not. And Justice Alito, what is alarming about his response is

69
00:06:42.040 --> 00:06:45.920
that it is in complete contrast to
what the Constitution stands for. And Cindy,

70
00:06:45.959 --> 00:06:49.000
I understand the point of view that
says, well, you got to

71
00:06:49.000 --> 00:06:54.319
rewrite your constitution because your constitution was
written by a bunch of slave owners two

72
00:06:54.439 --> 00:06:57.680
hundred and forty, two hundred and
fifty years ago. Valid. However,

73
00:06:57.920 --> 00:07:01.160
who's going to step up and rewrite
the constance when we've got such a stark

74
00:07:01.199 --> 00:07:04.720
divide in this country. Neither side
wants to lose any ground to the other

75
00:07:04.959 --> 00:07:10.879
because that divide is so big.
So there's one perspective to kind of take

76
00:07:10.920 --> 00:07:16.279
into consideration. In addition, I
just think that the Supreme Court justices are

77
00:07:16.319 --> 00:07:20.360
supposed to be able to base their
decisions on their expertise, and they're not

78
00:07:20.480 --> 00:07:25.279
able to do that. It completely
goes against the Constitution when you have a

79
00:07:25.279 --> 00:07:29.720
perspective like Alito's. Well, going
back to that, if we're talking about

80
00:07:29.800 --> 00:07:35.560
perspective, let's kind of explore the
historical contexts. So you got two justices

81
00:07:36.079 --> 00:07:41.519
that are seemingly very conservative, and
they seem to kind of be on the

82
00:07:41.560 --> 00:07:45.920
same side when it comes to certain
issues that come across their desks. However,

83
00:07:46.160 --> 00:07:51.360
you have one that is clearly believed
written Vinn and you have another one

84
00:07:51.439 --> 00:07:58.839
who is, as you said,
refreshingly driven by I believe the spirit of

85
00:07:58.879 --> 00:08:03.519
the establishment clause be objective when it
comes to how they rule, and it

86
00:08:03.600 --> 00:08:09.639
should be without any type of bias
or preconceived notions. So now that we

87
00:08:09.759 --> 00:08:11.519
have both of these type of people
on the court, and of course that

88
00:08:11.600 --> 00:08:16.879
we can say with some of the
other ones that are there, possibly more

89
00:08:16.920 --> 00:08:22.360
on Alito's side, How is that
going to show up historically? Does Roberts

90
00:08:22.399 --> 00:08:28.759
provide the counter the idea that the
nation is unusually polarized? Or is it

91
00:08:28.879 --> 00:08:35.120
that we are just not ready to
actually just like move forward and be able

92
00:08:35.240 --> 00:08:39.720
to be objective in the way that
we are actually looking at laws. Jimmy,

93
00:08:39.759 --> 00:08:43.320
I want you to kind of respond
to that, and then Cindia,

94
00:08:43.279 --> 00:08:45.919
I would like for you to counter. Yeah, Well, Sidney's point that

95
00:08:45.960 --> 00:08:48.440
Alito is on the wrong side of
history is absolutely right. I think that

96
00:08:48.480 --> 00:08:54.480
the two perspectives between these these two
Supreme Court justice show the growth or the

97
00:08:56.519 --> 00:09:01.480
well the growth in the schism between
right and left in this country. Roberts

98
00:09:01.639 --> 00:09:05.000
represents kind of an older value,
one that's several decades older. Alito is

99
00:09:05.039 --> 00:09:11.000
relatively newer and represents the growth that
has taken place in that schism. And

100
00:09:11.080 --> 00:09:16.360
when history looks back and it judges
the United States, and it judges the

101
00:09:16.399 --> 00:09:22.320
people that supported the MAGA movement,
it will look at the legal and authoritative

102
00:09:22.320 --> 00:09:28.200
figures in our government that we're willing
to compromise the spirit intent of our Constitution

103
00:09:28.399 --> 00:09:31.799
and really the spirit and intent of
our country. Right, the fabric that's

104
00:09:31.799 --> 00:09:35.559
going to hold us together. They
were willing to compromise the country for their

105
00:09:35.600 --> 00:09:43.440
own personal gain, their own personal
perspectives and allegiances. And that is where

106
00:09:43.480 --> 00:09:48.960
Alito is going to fall. Where
Roberts, although he might look like the

107
00:09:48.000 --> 00:09:52.320
rest of his tribe, was willing
to work with the other tribes. And

108
00:09:52.360 --> 00:09:56.279
I think that that is the difference. What about you, Cindy, what

109
00:09:56.320 --> 00:10:00.799
are your thoughts? Yeah, I
agree there will be a difference by in

110
00:10:01.159 --> 00:10:07.480
the end, I think the problem
remains. The reason why I said that

111
00:10:07.559 --> 00:10:15.720
the Constitution needs to be rewritten is
because in its concurrent condition, the institutions

112
00:10:15.879 --> 00:10:22.080
are programmed to work with good faith
people and trump Ism just destroy that.

113
00:10:22.080 --> 00:10:28.720
That's why he's been very effective,
and it's been very very hard to stop

114
00:10:28.799 --> 00:10:35.240
him because he's not doing anything in
good faith. Well, I wanted to

115
00:10:35.639 --> 00:10:41.320
interject, not necessarily, you know, just putting in Trumpism, because number

116
00:10:41.320 --> 00:10:43.879
one, we do not endorse any
type of candidate that happens to be running

117
00:10:45.279 --> 00:10:50.360
in November, and we are not
trying to actually sway anybody on how you

118
00:10:50.399 --> 00:10:54.039
know, they should vote. But
I think that it's important. And even

119
00:10:54.080 --> 00:10:58.159
though like I don't disagree with you
per se as far as like you know,

120
00:10:58.360 --> 00:11:01.759
the way that we pass. We
should be looking at the way that

121
00:11:01.000 --> 00:11:05.399
the Constitution is now and how it's
being engaged, because it was actually saying

122
00:11:05.399 --> 00:11:09.600
that, hey, we're actually thinking
that you're going to do the right thing,

123
00:11:09.000 --> 00:11:13.639
but we are seeing that because there's
other interest that's involved, that's not

124
00:11:13.679 --> 00:11:18.519
necessarily the case. And this is
something I would say was definitely before twenty

125
00:11:18.600 --> 00:11:22.159
sixteen, twenty fifteen, et cetera, et cetera. So you know,

126
00:11:22.559 --> 00:11:28.919
I think that keeping that in mind, how else would you see the historical

127
00:11:30.000 --> 00:11:35.720
context would be when we definitely have
like such polarizing our viewpoints just on the

128
00:11:35.720 --> 00:11:39.639
Supreme Court alone. Yeah, my
point and where I was going to was

129
00:11:39.720 --> 00:11:46.159
that even Trumpeism is not the issue
in itself. The issue is that there

130
00:11:46.240 --> 00:11:52.440
is a very small majority of chrystal
fascists as we call them, who is

131
00:11:52.480 --> 00:12:01.720
trying to impose their religious view on
everyone else. And this movement as is

132
00:12:01.000 --> 00:12:07.679
just taking tropisms as just a locomotives
and and yeah, and it's just a

133
00:12:07.759 --> 00:12:13.039
way to impose their view on everyone
else. And so when history will judge

134
00:12:13.039 --> 00:12:18.480
that, they will realize that how
could so few people impose their views on

135
00:12:18.799 --> 00:12:24.440
so many people? And why did
anyone stop them? Because people claim that

136
00:12:24.519 --> 00:12:28.080
the US is a democracy, and
I don't think it is. But in

137
00:12:28.120 --> 00:12:33.559
a democracy normally, uh, the
majority is supposed to rule. And so

138
00:12:33.639 --> 00:12:39.240
the question will be how how is
it possible for such a minority to go

139
00:12:39.559 --> 00:12:46.120
so high into imposing their views on
everyone? And that will because there will

140
00:12:46.159 --> 00:12:52.879
be there will have been people in
strong positions like the Supreme Court, like

141
00:12:52.320 --> 00:12:58.360
some senators, like some representatives,
like some and and that's how you go

142
00:12:58.600 --> 00:13:03.519
from where we are now to where
the US can potentially be, which is

143
00:13:03.720 --> 00:13:07.879
much much, much worse. Yeah, I don't disagree with that. I

144
00:13:09.879 --> 00:13:15.639
know that. My personal worry is
that we do have a minority of people

145
00:13:15.720 --> 00:13:20.960
that happen to be in power being
influenced by another minority that's not necessarily good

146
00:13:20.960 --> 00:13:26.200
for the social contract of the country. And I definitely know because we talked

147
00:13:26.200 --> 00:13:33.879
about it so much about the influence
of Christian nationalism or crystal fascism that happens

148
00:13:33.919 --> 00:13:41.120
to be running so rampant in our
government entities, as far as even like

149
00:13:41.399 --> 00:13:46.360
a in a institution like the Supreme
Court that's supposed to be impartial. That's

150
00:13:46.440 --> 00:13:52.559
the main reason why this particular body
of people are not elected. They are

151
00:13:52.600 --> 00:13:58.519
appointed, and they are supposed to
be appointed and confirmed by another branch of

152
00:13:58.559 --> 00:14:03.000
the government, which is the legislation
when specifically the Senate, in order for

153
00:14:03.080 --> 00:14:09.600
them to be separate from any type
of political institution, and they can be

154
00:14:09.840 --> 00:14:20.039
completely influenced by the spirit and the
interpretation of what the Constitution is saying or

155
00:14:20.120 --> 00:14:24.440
trying to say. And there have
been times in our history where the Supreme

156
00:14:24.480 --> 00:14:31.440
Court got it right, and unfortunately, there are times even as of late,

157
00:14:31.879 --> 00:14:35.960
where the Supreme Court has got it
wrong. So, Jimmy, I

158
00:14:37.000 --> 00:14:43.759
want to ask you about windsor specifically
this young person that happened to attend the

159
00:14:43.879 --> 00:14:48.360
event that is supposed to be for
Supreme Court justices to kind of you know,

160
00:14:48.480 --> 00:14:54.639
schmooze and stuff like that. You
know, I personally of the opinion

161
00:14:56.080 --> 00:14:58.799
that events like this shouldn't even be
a thing. I don't necessarily think that,

162
00:15:00.240 --> 00:15:03.720
you know, public people should be
able to get at the Supreme Court

163
00:15:03.799 --> 00:15:09.679
in of itself, because again,
we want them to be impartial as much

164
00:15:09.720 --> 00:15:16.440
as possible. But what do you
think her action or activism helped to reveal

165
00:15:16.919 --> 00:15:22.279
and do you think that it would
be something that will possibly be a good

166
00:15:22.399 --> 00:15:28.759
thing as far as like how we
progress and go forward knowing that these are

167
00:15:28.799 --> 00:15:33.799
the thoughts of the people that happen
to rule on the highest court in the

168
00:15:33.919 --> 00:15:35.200
land. Well, I don't know
if it's going to have as much of

169
00:15:35.200 --> 00:15:39.960
an impact as we hope or as
it should, because people are consistently proving

170
00:15:39.960 --> 00:15:43.039
themselves, especially people on the right
in this country, that they really don't

171
00:15:43.080 --> 00:15:48.480
care about the good old boy system
that happens with this party in particular.

172
00:15:48.559 --> 00:15:52.399
But you know, not only with
this party. I mean, we should

173
00:15:52.399 --> 00:15:56.679
not be making celebrities or royalty out
of our elected officials, but unfortunately we

174
00:15:56.960 --> 00:16:00.000
just do. And there is an
element of being being part of the group

175
00:16:00.120 --> 00:16:04.320
that takes place all across the government. I have no problem with the fact

176
00:16:04.360 --> 00:16:11.399
that she went in there and disingenuously
extracted his true opinion out of him,

177
00:16:11.080 --> 00:16:15.440
because he is a public figure and
you should know better when you are talking

178
00:16:15.440 --> 00:16:18.399
to somebody, everything is fair game, even if you think it's off the

179
00:16:18.440 --> 00:16:22.879
record. There is no off the
record. You are a Supreme Court justice.

180
00:16:22.879 --> 00:16:26.960
And yeah, they shouldn't be people
that can be accessible to donors,

181
00:16:27.039 --> 00:16:33.480
to lobbyists, to other people with
great influence, because the whole point of

182
00:16:33.559 --> 00:16:37.320
having a Supreme Court justice elected for
life or excuse me, appointed for life,

183
00:16:37.360 --> 00:16:42.879
not elected, is to stave off
that exact influence, and instead,

184
00:16:44.200 --> 00:16:47.639
you know, they are just exposed
to it regularly. I'm glad that she

185
00:16:47.840 --> 00:16:53.679
exposed the idea that this person,
through his opinions, renders the constitutional the

186
00:16:53.720 --> 00:17:00.360
constitution, excuse me, dysfunctional.
Rather, it cannot function effectively with him

187
00:17:00.399 --> 00:17:06.240
interpreting it because he lacks the ability
to interpret it objectively. That is a

188
00:17:06.279 --> 00:17:10.799
big problem, and so I'm happy
she did it. He shouldn't be surprised.

189
00:17:10.839 --> 00:17:14.599
There was no reasonable expectation of privacy. And it's not like, you

190
00:17:14.640 --> 00:17:18.200
know, she went into his bathroom
and held a microphone while he was while

191
00:17:18.240 --> 00:17:18.960
he was getting out of the shower, you know what I mean. This

192
00:17:19.079 --> 00:17:25.440
was a public event. I just
think that he's stupid. He should recuse

193
00:17:25.519 --> 00:17:29.480
himself from the Supreme Court, and
he should step down immediately. But that's

194
00:17:29.480 --> 00:17:32.400
not going to happen. Yeah,
I know. Remember we already have like

195
00:17:32.519 --> 00:17:40.519
issues specifically with Alito being called to
recuse himself from certain judgments, certain cases

196
00:17:41.039 --> 00:17:45.039
like January sixth, like the immunity
case that's going to be coming up,

197
00:17:45.039 --> 00:17:49.079
and he's just not doing it.
And it's quite unfortunate that that's not the

198
00:17:49.119 --> 00:17:52.799
case, because, as you said, he has proven himself not to be

199
00:17:52.880 --> 00:17:57.279
impartial. But you know, Cindy, I want to come to you because,

200
00:17:57.359 --> 00:18:03.000
like, you know, something that
Roberts said to Winsor was pretty interesting.

201
00:18:03.480 --> 00:18:07.440
He said that the idea of the
Supreme Court should be to put the

202
00:18:07.839 --> 00:18:15.680
country on a more moral path.
How do you think that Robert's response to

203
00:18:15.839 --> 00:18:21.519
that idea should be put and also
how should be interpreted? Should that be

204
00:18:21.599 --> 00:18:26.400
the role of the Supreme Court or
No? Well, Chief Forbad Says said

205
00:18:26.480 --> 00:18:30.119
said no if I remember correctly,
and a little just said yes. So

206
00:18:32.599 --> 00:18:37.319
yeah, you know the ACA,
we have several shows and we regularly see

207
00:18:37.359 --> 00:18:44.440
people claiming that we get our morals
from God. So it's not surprising that

208
00:18:44.640 --> 00:18:49.880
someone who's trying to impose his religious
views believes that his morals come from God

209
00:18:49.920 --> 00:18:56.559
and that because of that he has
to impose them. So it's not surprising.

210
00:18:56.519 --> 00:19:04.000
It's terrifying that it exists at this
level of responsibility and power. But

211
00:19:04.960 --> 00:19:12.599
the the the entire processes is cured
now, like he was heard in front

212
00:19:12.640 --> 00:19:18.920
of the Senate before he was appointed. Amiconi Barrett. She was. She

213
00:19:19.079 --> 00:19:23.960
was hurt also and uh she was
asked, do you think that Robertus Wade

214
00:19:25.119 --> 00:19:30.319
is UH is legal and and and
should be the law? She said yes,

215
00:19:30.359 --> 00:19:34.960
and everyone knew she was lying and
she was confirmed. Same thing goes

216
00:19:36.000 --> 00:19:41.720
with with the others. So I
really don't see how you can change that

217
00:19:41.160 --> 00:19:48.319
uh in in the kurrent current situation
and implorization of the US. But it

218
00:19:48.400 --> 00:19:52.240
has to start there. Uh lies
have to have a consequence. Yeah,

219
00:19:52.480 --> 00:19:59.880
I agree. And ultimately a commitment
to the judiciary past and partiality and at

220
00:19:59.880 --> 00:20:04.720
the integrity is necessary, absolutely necessary
to preserve the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

221
00:20:06.119 --> 00:20:08.079
With out those things, the Supreme
Court is probably going to be looked

222
00:20:08.079 --> 00:20:12.599
at, or actually looked at as
just a de facto institution. And we

223
00:20:12.720 --> 00:20:19.200
really should be pushing more so a
way to actually safeguard democratic values upon the

224
00:20:19.319 --> 00:20:22.759
nation on which it was founded on