[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. If you were making a judicial code of ethics, something the Supreme Court does not currently have, what might be in it? Maybe a ban on taking luxury gifts from people who have a political interest in cases coming before the court, maybe at least disclosing such gifts. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Illinois Democratic Dick Durbin wants something like that.

Dick Durbin: They are the most powerful judges in America, and yet they're not required to follow even the most basic ethical standards.

Brian Lehrer: Dick Durbin wants that. Republican Lindsey Graham, not so much.

Lindsey Graham: This bill is going nowhere. All of us are going to vote no.

Brian Lehrer: A Supreme Court ethics bill passed the judiciary committee yesterday, in which all the Republicans did vote no but it's got a Democratic majority. It is expected to die in the full Senate, thanks to the 60% requirement for passage, the filibuster rule. A Quinnipiac poll shows the Supreme Court has less public respect than any time in the 20 years or so since they started asking the question. We'll see if this becomes an issue in the 2024 election cycle.

If you were making a presidential code of ethics, might it include not asking your lawyer to lie to the Justice Department, or not asking your small donor supporters to send money for a defense fund that never existed? Those are some of the things that The New York Times reports Donald Trump might be charged with soon by federal prosecutors. Now that a target letter as they call it, has gone out to him. Republican presidential hopeful, Nikki Haley, generally supportive of Trump, but running against him is starting to be more critical.

Nikki Haley: It's going to keep on going. The rest of this primary election is going to be in reference to Trump, is going to be about lawsuits, it's going to be about legal fees, it's going to be about judges. It's just going to continue to be a further and further distraction.

Brian Lehrer: Trump is not a criminal, but he is a distraction from the issues is where Nikki Haley at least more or less is now. By the way, there is some breaking Trump trial news just in the last few minutes. The judge in the classified documents case in Florida just announced a trial date for Trump in May of next year, May in the 2024 election year. If he is the apparent Republican nominee by then, or if those last primaries that come that late in the season will still matter to who the nominee is. Well, they may be taking place at the exact same time as Trump is standing trial as ordered by that Trump-appointed Judge, Judge Cannon for classified document violations.

If you were making a gender code of ethics, what might be in that? Would it include basic reproductive rights for women? A USA Today's Suffolk University poll finds now that the Dobbs decision is a year old, that public attitudes are changing toward becoming more in favor of abortion rights. It says by almost four to one, 23% to 6%, those whose views on abortion have changed in the past year said they have become more supportive of legal abortion, not less supportive.

Will that become a decisive issue in the Republican primaries or the general election next year? Independent women, one of the most critical swing groups in elections, by 28% to just 5% said they had become more supportive of abortion rights, that from USA Today. With us now USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page, also author of the bestselling books, Madam Speaker: Nancy Pelosi and the Lessons of Power, and The Matriarch: Barbara Bush and the Making of an American Dynasty. Hi, Susan, always good to have you. Welcome back to WNYC.

Susan Page: Hey, Brian, it's always good to be with you.

Brian Lehrer: Your poll's been out for a little while, but let's start there anyway. The Supreme Court last year threw abortion rights out of the Constitution into the political fray. What do you think the news is from your one-year-later poll?

Susan Page: One of the things we found is that people are very aware of all the actions states have taken. Some blue states to enshrine abortion rights in their constitutions and in their laws, but in many states Republican-controlled states to strictly limit abortions in ways that were not permitted before Roe v. Wade was overturned. We found that that has had an effect. About one in four Americans tell us that those state actions have made them more supportive of abortion rights than they were before the decision came down.

That is surely an unintended consequence of that Supreme Court decision. We also found overwhelming opposition to a federal abortion law that would limit or ban abortions. That's one thing that anti-abortion activists some of them are pushing for. That included two-thirds of Republicans opposing that law. A majority although not a big majority, supporting the idea of a federal law that would protect access to abortion nationwide.

Brian Lehrer: Here's an emerging political battleground in the abortion rights debate. This may be flowing below a lot of our listeners' radar. Apparently, the Biden administration wants HIPAA law medical privacy protection for women who travel to legal states from illegal states to receive abortions. 19 red states are objecting to the rule. Arkansas is the latest to join, that was in the news the other day. They want law enforcement to be able to see those medical records of women getting out-of-state abortions. Do you think something like that is too in the weeds to break out as a big voting issue, the HIPAA aspect?

Susan Page: I think one of the reasons we've seen changes in attitudes toward abortion rights nationwide already is people seeing specific cases of the impact that abortion laws have on the lives of people. It was about a year ago that the USA Today network broke the story of a 10-year-old girl in Ohio who had to go to Indiana to get a legal abortion after she had been raped. I think people were distressed by that.

It made people think about what are the consequences of some of the actions that are being taken. I think that could happen in the case of medical privacy if we find that states that want to take a look at the medical records of women who perhaps traveled to an adjoining state to get a legal abortion, if that is open to their purview. I think that it's a slightly complicated issue, but it's one with a human dimension that, yes, I think could resonate politically.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, and for people familiar with the basis of the Roe decision from the 1970s that established abortion as a constitutional right, it was based on privacy. For people in the weeds enough to understand that constitutional debate which the current court rejected said there was no right to privacy implied by the Constitution per se. The HIPAA aspect replicates that privacy debate for people around the country who might think, yes, this should be a matter of privacy just like the birth control right was established on the basis of privacy.

HIPAA is a medical privacy law, so they put that back into play. This red state push to see these medical records of women who traveled out-of-state for abortion services. From what I've read, Susan, no state has at least not yet announced that it will prosecute women who traveled to another state and received an abortion where it was legal and then returned. Do you have any reason to expect that such prosecutions or state laws enabling such prosecutions are coming?

Susan Page: I think it is possible if states are allowed to look at medical records of women who travel to other states to obtain legal abortions. The letter that was written by the Mississippi Attorney General that started this appeals process against the proposed rule that the Biden administration is proposing. Said that the regulation would be unconstitutional because it removes state's authority to enforce their own laws.

It seems to me, at least raises the possibility of action being taken about women who travel to other states to get abortion services. Democrats in Congress last year proposed a law that would have protected the rights of women to travel to another state to get a legal abortion. That was blocked by Republicans in Congress. This administrative action by the Biden administration has followed to the same purpose.

Brian Lehrer: I guess why else would these 19 states want law enforcement to be able to see out-of-state abortion records if not to potentially prosecute the woman for getting that abortion? Are you following the push to get more abortion rights referenda on state ballots next year? Theoretically, they could help overturn some restrictive state laws and also help drive Democratic party turnout, but I've read it's been rough going in a number of states to get these referenda going.

Because Republicans are throwing up legal obstacles, and also abortion rights proponents that's been reported are not easily agreeing on what the provision should say. Should they cite a certain number of weeks? If so, what should that number be? Roe was roughly 24, but do they even want to set that limit? If the language should say, women or pregnant people, do you have any reporting or insight into what kinds of referendums or what the landscape is shaping up to be on this for next year?

Susan Page: Yes, Brian, before we talk about that if I just add one thing on our previous topic. The attorneys general from the states that are objecting to this proposed Biden administration do say that there is a criminal component to being able to see the medical records. For instance, to try to pursue sexual assault cases. There are cases in which they say it serves a bigger public purpose and HIPAA does have an exception to medical privacy for criminal cases, so we'll see how that gets sorted out.

Yes, it seems to me state ballot initiatives are the next big battleground when it comes to abortion rights because it is a way that abortion rights advocates can get around the power of Republican-controlled state legislatures and governors to enshrine abortion rights through state action. We're going to see that in one state this November in this off-year election in Ohio, really hotly contested, proposed constitutional amendment in Ohio.

One thing that Ohio has passed and the governor has signed a very restrictive abortion ban that is now being contested in the courts. We have a USA Today network, Suffolk University poll of Ohio coming out on Monday that shows broad public support for this constitutional amendment. That's why it's been I think the avenue that advocates in some red states see available to tap public opinion on abortion rights and bypass the laws that some GOP legislatures are passing.

Brian Lehrer: Really interesting. Why would Ohio Democrats, if they're responsible for this referendum, put it on the ballot for this year an off-year election rather than next year, a congressional election year, and a presidential election year? When if it does drive democratic turnout it would mean so much more.

Susan Page: That's the question not for me to answer, and I don't know the answer to it. I would say that supporters of abortion rights would say we should act as soon as possible to enshrine abortion rights in our state constitution. One thing that's interesting to watch about Ohio, we think there are maybe a dozen other states that are looking at what's going to happen in Ohio this November for lessons learned for battles next year in the presidential election year to put state measures on their ballots. Including places like Missouri and Arizona and some other states where this effort is in its early stages. Ohio's become a test case for both sides on how to push for ballot initiatives and also on the effective tactics to oppose them.

Brian Lehrer: Really interesting. We'll have to continue to cover that Ohio referendum as Election Day this year comes closer. Makes me remember Susan, and we've talked about this on the show recently, that Ohio in 2004, when Ohio used to be a swing state, now it's a red state at least for a while it looks like in presidential elections. When it was a swing state, when that was the decisive state between John Kerry and George W. Bush in 2004. One of the reasons Bush won was that Republicans got a referendum on the ballot opposing gay rights.

I think gay marriage in particular. That drove Republican turnout more than it drove Democratic turnout. That's what it was designed to do and it apparently succeeded. One of the main reasons one could argue that it was a decisive reason in and of itself that without that referendum on the ballot, John Kerry would've squeaked by in that state and won the election. That's a great historical example of the power of referendum to swing other elections, and it comes from the same state we're talking about Ohio.

Susan Page: Absolutely. I think that that was a lesson learned on the part of Democrats Karl Rove. George W. Bush's chief strategist takes credit for trying to push as many states as possible to put opposition to gay marriage on their ballots. That was an issue that really energized Republican turnout. Then I think it probably wouldn't to the same degree. Now in that issue, Democrats saw have seen the political power of the abortion issue since the Dobbs decision. Including in last November's midterm elections. Republicans were disappointed in what happened to their candidates in that election, and both sides think that the power of the abortion issue was one big reason why.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call on this before we go on to the Trump federal prosecutor's target letter, which there's reporting on now on the specific crimes that he might be charged with, with respect to January 6th. Amy in Manhattan is calling on the abortion politics question. Amy, you're on WNYC. Thank you for calling in.

Amy: Thank you, Brian. I'm remembering that after the Dobbs-- not Dobbs. Anyway that a state couldn't make it illegal to go out of states for an abortion, but Texas made it possible for someone else in the state to sue that person for damages. I just never understood what kind of damages was it supposed to do to a person who might have no connection with the person who was seeking the abortion.

Brian Lehrer: Amy, thank you. Susan, I've heard of this before. We've had a conversation about it on the show. I'm not sure exactly where that line is. There is a civil suit aspect as opposed to a criminal prosecution aspect that could wind up getting women who travel out of state to legal states when they return to Texas that could affect them, right?

Susan Page: Yes. I think that this very creative Texas approach was designed to bypass problems with officials getting standing who go after abortions including women who travel elsewhere to get abortions. They just devised this statute to give citizens the ability to both investigate and pursue, and that's been pretty controversial. Texas definitely in the vanguard of trying to push the envelope in terms of opposing abortion access.

Brian Lehrer: You know what, let's take a quick break right here as we get ready to turn the page with Susan Page, and talk about this breaking Trump classified documents trial news. The reporting that's now out on the specific things that it looks very likely that he's going to be charged by federal prosecutors with respect to January 6th. Listeners, your questions and comments, welcome about any of these things, 2024, abortion rights, politics.

The Trump target letter from federal prosecutors and the classified documents trial date, which has huge political implications. The Republican investigations will touch on those. Supreme Court ethics will definitely get to those, or anything else relevant for Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief of USA Today, 212-433 WNYC. As we talk Friday morning politics, 212-433-9692, or you can text your comment or question to that number as well. Stay with us.

[music]

Brian Lehrer on WNYC as we talk politics of this week with Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today. Susan, you saw the breaking news just before we went on. The judge in the Trump classified documents case has set a trial date after the two sides went back and forth on how quickly that trial date should be set, and the answer is--?

Susan Page: The answer is next May. Judge Cannon split the difference. The government wanted to go ahead with prosecution starting in December. The lawyers for Donald Trump wanted to delay it as long as possible maybe until after the election. This trial is now scheduled to begin after most of the Republican primaries will have been held-- not all of them-- but as will be in the middle of a presidential campaign.

Brian Lehrer: What do you think the implications are, or is it too hard to even speculate because so much could have changed by then? Let's say Trump is the apparent nominee by then, or if some of those late primaries like in our area. I don't think New Jersey happens before May. I'm not even sure when-- I guess New York has been moved up more around Super Tuesday, but I don't think New Jersey happens until June. Have you started to speculate at all yet, or is it just pointless on what the political implications could be of that starting at that time?

Susan Page: I would just note that my record on speculating on the effects of some of these things is not a very good one, so should be modest in predicting what's going to happen. Because before Trump, you would think having a trial start against you, a criminal trial in federal court in the middle of a presidential campaign would be a detriment to your campaign. The fact is that has not been our experience with Donald Trump so far. He's faced two indictments now, a third looming, maybe one in Atlanta also coming soon.

So far what it's done is supercharge his fundraising, and has not in a significant way affected his standing in polls in the key states. He has been able to use these criminal prosecutions and found liable in a New York court on some charges in a way that we would not have predicted possible before he came on the scene. It's become one more grievance. He's cited by the establishment, by the Justice Department, by the courts, and the media against him, and so far that has worked for him.

Brian Lehrer: Since this is brand new breaking news right now, I haven't been able to look into the details yet enough to know the answer to this question, because it's hard to read and talk at the same time, but maybe you have. Does the fact that Judge Cannon said a trial date at all means that she rejected Trump's argument, that they cannot prosecute him at all? They cannot hold a trial while he is a presidential candidate.

Susan Page: I think that's the implication, but I haven't read the court filing either. That will be something interesting to find out. Maybe one of your smart listeners who's a lawyer has read it and can weigh in on that, but it seems to me the fact that she has set a trial date indicates she thinks a trial can begin. Although she did give the Trump side a little more time to get ready for it.

Brian Lehrer: Now, there was news which actually was released by Donald Trump himself this week that he has received what's known as a target letter from federal prosecutors. Can you explain target letter to our non-lawyer listeners and host? I see people writing that this means he's almost certain to be indicted in connection with January 6th.

Susan Page: A target letter doesn't guarantee you're going to be indicted, but it is traditionally used to signal to someone that they are on the verge of being indicted. That was certainly the case the first time around with the Special Counsel Jack Smith in the other case that Donald Trump is facing on the alleged mishandling of sensitive documents. People smarter than me interpret this as meaning that Trump will be indicted, and we think very soon we've been watching for that every day.

Brian Lehrer: The New York Times reports that a person briefed on the matter says, the target letter cited three statutes that Trump could be charged with violating. One is conspiracy to defraud the United States, that according to The Times could involve using false documents to pressure Mike Pence not to certify the election on January 6th. Is it clear to you what false documents that might refer to?

Susan Page: I read The New York Times story, which is very interesting on the three areas that an indictment may come, but I think you need to talk to someone with a better, stronger legal background than I have to explore that in a smart way.

Brian Lehrer: Okay. A related fraud charge could reportedly have to do with soliciting money from Trump's supporters, regular people, small donors around the country to help pay for a defense fund that didn't actually exist. Are you familiar with this potentially fraudulent fundraising appeal or non-existent defense fund?

Susan Page: Sure. We heard about that with the January 6th committee investigation about the fundraising that was used for this, where his appeal for funds for legal defense went to other purposes. That's something that we learned something about with that January 6th hearing. That report by the January 6th committee has held up pretty well as a roadmap for what has happened in the Jack Smith investigation. I think they deserve some credit for the number of interviews they did, and for the amount of information that they were able to uncover. Although we do think that Jack Smith will have things that we don't now know about.

Brian Lehrer: Then there's corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. Another crime the target letter reportedly says Trump could be charged with. That would pertain presumably to the January 6th riot and break-in itself. What's your take and what are your sources who are legal experts tell you on what they would have to prove to hold him criminally responsible for that? He never directly said to break in, just to protest, and things like it will be wild, and we have to take our country back. That's not saying go and break glass and get in there and ransack the offices and try to physically threaten them and obstruct the proceeding from taking place inside the Capitol.

Susan Page: Correctly obstructing an official proceeding is a charge we've become familiar with through these series of cases against January 6th defendants in court and then they've held up. We've had seen protestors convicted and sent to jail on this charge. As you say, it's a little different, Trump wasn't physically there when they stormed the Capitol. You need to prove that he sent them there, that his actions and his words sent these protesters to storm the Capitol, and whether he knew that was what he was doing, was that his intention.

Brian Lehrer: I think this relates to another thing that at least MSNBC has been playing a lot in the last day. It's a video that Trump reposted from a supporter on his social media platform that appears to threaten violence, and by implication, if he's prosecuted because it came out just after the target letter. I'm going to play this short audio and see what you make of it. Listeners, imagine you're an amped-up Trump supporter and you're on the internet and you come across this.

Trump: If you f*** around with us. If you do something bad to us, we're going to do things to you that have never been done before.

Susan Page: If you do something bad to us, we're going to do things to you that have never been done before. Now, that's actually a clip from his presidency where he was talking about Iran, but that from the reporting that I've seen is not made clear and it's being circulated now, including by Trump himself who reposted it after the release of this news of the investigation target letter. Susan, I actually wonder, could that be another crime in the making threatening violence in response to legal proceedings?

Brian Lehrer: Here's the thing about Donald Trump. He is a gift to prosecutors because of the amount of material he posts on social media and the things that he says out loud. His interview with Bret Baier, when was that, three weeks ago? He basically acknowledged some of the charges made in the documents case about that he was aware the documents were there and he knew he was supposed to turn them over, but he had some other stuff in the boxes that he wanted to go through first.

This is a gift to prosecutors. One of the things we know about Trump from when he first came on the scene in 2015 as a candidate is that he says out loud things that other candidates and presidents might not do so whether or not they were thinking them. The question of his language now about violence against the legal processes. That's come up in this trial in that judges are unenthusiastic about defendants attacking the process. So far there hasn't been a gag order on Trump. Not sure how that would work with Trump. Maybe that's an area to be watching.

Susan Page: Right. A gag order on trial content is one thing saying we're going to do things to you that nobody's ever done before with no context on that. If you come after us maybe that could be taken as another. Whether or not it's a crime, the FBI says it's afraid of lone-wolf domestic terrorists, maybe even more than organized groups like the Proud Boys at this point. Because they know who the Proud Boys' leadership are, they can watch that group within the law. They can't know every lone-wolf terrorist. That's scary, isn't it? With videos like this, it's even more scary.

Brian Lehrer: One of the things I found most distressing on the vote on impeaching Trump the second time was some Republican members of Congress said privately that they didn't vote to impeach him because they were worried about the safety of themselves and their families. That is a pretty distressing fact to hear that officials elected to represent their constituents are taking actions based on their alarm that those who disagree with them might actually attack them and their families

Susan Page: On a parallel track this week-- actually, let me get another call in here. Is Pete in Norwalk ready to go? Let me put Pete on if he's ready to go there. Pete in Norwalk, you're on WNYC with Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today. Hi, Pete.

Pete: Hey, how are you. Just real quick, it's kind of frustrating. I feel I'm in the twilight zone when I hear all this because it's just been on the news for so long. Three years, he threatens people when he's in court, Amy Coney Barrett, threatened his parents. It's just like nothing seems to happen. Then it's in May, so that gives what? Six months till the election. It all seems planned to me.

Brian Lehrer: On which side?

Pete: He's not going to go anywhere. I have a feeling he's not going anywhere, and I'm confused why all the Republicans are so scared of him.

Brian Lehrer: What was that Amy Coney Barrett reference?

Pete: My mind is blown by all of this.

Brian Lehrer: What was that Amy Coney Barrett referenced though and somebody's parents? I didn't get that.

Pete: He was threatening her parents via Twitter.

Brian Lehrer: I guess I must have missed that one. Pete, thank you very much. We're going to get to Pete's larger point in a second, but I don't want that to go on fact-check if it needs to be fact-checked. Susan, are you familiar with that, whether that's real or just something that went around?

Susan Page: I'm not aware of that, but you know what, I'm with Pete in thinking that we need to take a step back and realize what an extraordinary, unprecedented, and perilous situation we find ourselves in. We're going to have multiple indictments trials going on during the presidential campaign involving one of the major party candidates. Donald Trump will need to figure out when he needs to be in court and when he wants to be on the campaign trail, and that this is the presidential election we have likely ahead of us. I agree it's a lot to take in, Pete.

Brian Lehrer: You wrote an article a few weeks ago on USA Today that basically said, all these Trump prosecutions, all this evidence, all this stuff, but does any of it matter?

Susan Page: So far not so much. We sat down with Chris Christie yesterday at the USA Today Washington Bureau and talked about his campaign. We talked very little about what Chris Christie wants to do if he's elected president, and of course, he's running for the Republican nomination. The hour was dominated by what has happened with Donald Trump, whether it makes a difference with Republican voters. Is there a lane for Christie who's been perhaps the most critical opponent about Trump? Whether that makes a difference. That is really the state of play we find ourselves in right now.

Brian Lehrer: Do you think once we get to this debate on August 23rd on Fox, and we don't know yet who's going to be in it? Let's say Chris Christie is in it, let's say Nikki Haley who we described at the top is starting to distance herself a little bit more from Trump and saying all his legal problems are a distraction from the issues. Do you think we will see any issues difference on abortion rights, on Supreme Court ethics, on anything in addition to their debating Donald Trump's fitness for office? Do they really disagree on any issues?

Susan Page: Let's hope we talk about something besides Donald Trump's legal problems in that debate. Nikki Haley has qualified for the debate so as Chris Christie. It stands as a big winnowing moment. Mike Pence, for instance, has not yet amassed the 40,000 individual donors he needs to show to get on the debate stage. It's not clear whether he's going to make the debate stage or not. There are differences among the candidates on big positions, including, for instance, aid to Ukraine policy toward Russia dealing with entitlements.

There are issues on which these candidates disagree. On abortion, all the candidates oppose abortion but they have different views on what the government ought to be doing about it. I assume that in this debate we'll hear a lot about Trump. I assume we'll also about the issues that would actually affect Americans' lives once the presidential election is over and the new person takes over.

Brian Lehrer: I guess there's also a question about whether Trump will participate. He presumably qualifies under their rules. If you're Trump, why get up there for everyone to attack you if you don't have to and you're the leading candidate, or he has enough power to make everyone else squirm by calling them rhinos if they do attack him?

Susan Page: Trump says he is not going to participate, his people say he won't join the debate. He is eligible. He has well over the number of donors and the status and polls that you need to get on the debate stage. Christie thinks he'll participate because he thinks he won't be able to not join an event that's going to have a big audience. The other thing that's been talked about is whether Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson might schedule a competing event at the same time as the debate and see which can get bigger ratings.

Brian Lehrer: On a parallel track this week, Republicans in Congress are trying to sell Biden any way they can without Trump-level misconduct to make an equivalency of. Here's an ABC News headline today that says, "In rare move, Grassley," that's Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, "Releases unverified FBI source report alleging Biden's involvement in bribe. The White House," it goes on to say, "Said the allegation is debunked and called the move a stunt." What can you tell us Susan about what is known to be real or fake or verified or unverified or debunked here?

Susan Page: Brian, I'm sorry. I think you know more about that than I do. Please you go back to the specifics on that case. I will say that on the Hunter Biden investigation, in particular, Republicans have been pretty determined to see if there's something there that is embarrassing or illegal, that involves not just Hunter Biden. It's pretty clear he was behaving badly, but also his father. Tell us about this ABC headline.

Brian Lehrer: All I really know so far as what I read a little before the show. It says, "In rare move, Grassley releases unverified FBI source report alleging Biden involvement in bribe." I think it is bound up with the Hunter Biden investigation.

Susan Page: Of course, we did see the whistleblowers in the Hunter Biden case testify before Congressional Committee this week. That was over the objections to the Democrats on that committee, The Hunter Biden issue, I do not think the GOP is going to let go of that. We're going to be hearing about that up to Election Day.

Brian Lehrer: Supreme Court ethics. What's the bill that Democrats have gotten through committee in the Senate, but that is not expected to pass the full body?

Susan Page: It imposed the first outside ethics rules on justices. It requires them to disclose gifts that they get. It would impose the same rules that lower court judges now abide by, and it would create a panel of appeals court judges who would review misconduct complaints against the Supreme Court justices. That's been quite a controversial provision. There's no possibility this gets enacted into law anytime soon.

It's really an effort by Dick Durbin, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and other Democrats to make a point about the failure of the Supreme Court to build public confidence that they're following common sense ethics rules. We've had a series of reports about luxury trips and about other financial benefits given to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. That's eroded what was already a court that was under some fire.

Brian Lehrer: USA Today colleagues report the legislation would require the Supreme Court to adopt a code of ethics, the kind already in place for lower federal court judges and other government officials. It's interesting that other federal court judges have to abide by a written code of ethics, but the Supreme Court justices do not. The USA Today article says the code of ethics bill would also set up a procedure for reviewing complaints against justices, creating a judicial investigation panel made up of five lower court judges.

Many Republicans, I guess, object to a judicial investigation panel as something that could be made political. I guess you're saying they have a point, at least, that this is a democratic talking point now because it's conservative Justices Alito and Thomas who got the luxury gifts. That questions are being raised about maybe if it was a justice from the liberal block both shoes would be on the other feet.

Susan Page: I think a lot of us were surprised there isn't already some kind of ethics guidelines for Supreme Court Justices. The tradition, I guess, has been that we just trust Supreme Court justices to behave in an ethical manner. The Supreme Court could choose to police itself on this issue by agreeing voluntarily to some kind of ethics guidelines. That might go a long way to quieting some of the really serious concerns that we hear and also efforts by some Democrats.

I personally don't think these efforts are going to go anywhere to do things like impose term limits on justices or expanding the number of justices on the court. This is part of some Americans feeling like the court is really behaving in inappropriate ways in some of these cases and that people ought to do something about it. We have a separation of powers and we'll see if the court itself responds in some ways to these concerns.

Brian Lehrer: Susan Page, USA Today Washington Bureau Chief, also author of the bestselling books, Madam Speaker: Nancy Pelosi and the Lessons of Power, and The Matriarch: Barbara Bush and the Making of an American Dynasty. She's also now working on a biography of TV journalist Barbara Walters. Susan, we always appreciate it so much. Have a great weekend. Thanks a lot.

Susan Page: Hey, you too. Thanks.

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer in WNYC. Much more to come.

 

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.