Yesterday, we told you about how Democrats tried to cheat in the process of amending the Constitution:
Democrats prevented from cheating to ‘ratify’ the Equal Rights Amendmenthttps://t.co/5qzhoFQPhO
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) April 28, 2023
Today, they are attacking the Constitution itself by attempting to undermine the Supreme Court itself with one bogus ‘scandal’ after another. Via Mattathias Schwartz …
… we get the latest HORRIBLE SUPREME COURT SCANDAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
🚨🚨🚨SCOOP: New whistleblower docs show Jane Roberts, who is married to SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts, made $10.3 million placing lawyers at elite firms — https://t.co/uB82RgJ8YC
— Mattathias Schwartz (@Schwartzesque) April 28, 2023
Click on the story to see the line-item spreadsheet of her commissions.
At least one of the firms that paid Jane Roberts — WilmerHale — later argued before SCOTUS. John Roberts did not recuse, and voted in favor of WH’s client.
— Mattathias Schwartz (@Schwartzesque) April 28, 2023
thank you @samfellman and John Cook for the edits and @TheNewsHam for the reporting help
— Mattathias Schwartz (@Schwartzesque) April 28, 2023
So just to be clear, she helps lawyers find jobs and gets paid when she is successful in placing them in jobs. She isn’t appearing before the Supreme Court. She isn’t working for a law firm appearing before the Supreme Court. She is at most helping people find jobs, who work for law firms, that someday might have business before the Supreme Court.
This is all based on the claims of Kendal B. Price, a supposed whistleblower, who used to work for the same recruiting firm. However, his lawyer, Joshua Dratel, kind of gives away the whole thing:
Dratel said that regardless of whether there was an actual conflict of interest, the linkage between the couple’s careers looked bad. ‘What’s the public confidence in a system when the firms which are appearing before the court are making decisions that are to the financial benefit of the chief justice?’ he asked.
Recommended
Except there is no financial benefit to the Chief Justice. So, they can’t actually point to an actual ‘conflict of interest’ and there is no financial benefit to the Chief Justice, so what is the scandal?
Other lawyers were not impressed:
LOL and?
— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) April 28, 2023
Ok. And?
— Jenna Ellis 🐊🇺🇸 (@JennaEllisEsq) April 28, 2023
Misogynistic much?
— Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 (@MarinaMedvin) April 28, 2023
Why does the left HATE independent, successful women?
— Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 (@MarinaMedvin) April 28, 2023
And while we don’t know if this Tweeter is a lawyer or not, this person drives Ms. Medvin’s point home:
She has a…job?????
[gasp!!! pearls clutched!!!!]
Remind me again which party wants women barefoot and in the kitchen?
— Ultra Grateful Calvin 🇺🇸🐶🏒 🎶 (@shoveitjack) April 28, 2023
Back to attorneys:
I'm sorry, what's the scandal? Someone good at her job made a lot of money doing it? These attempts to smear Supreme Court justices because they are an obstacle to the left's authoritarian agenda are just pathetic
— Jenin Younes (former handle @leftylockdowns1) (@JeninYounesEsq) April 28, 2023
News flash: Justices' spouses are allowed to have careers.
— Michael W. Towns, Sr. (@MichaelWTownsSr) April 28, 2023
Still, we all know what is really going on, here:
They're wielding their authoritarian club against all of the Constitutionalist judges because the Constitution is in their way of shredding it. That's why these stories are so abundant now.
— Kelly Winkler III (@WinklerIii) April 29, 2023
Really, Jeff Blehar explains it well.
I hope everyone understands there is a centrally coordinated campaign against the legitimacy of SCOTUS behind this rash of phony stories about purported financial conflicts (ones actual lawyers know are BS). I mean, approve or disapprove, I don't care. But know that's it's an op.
— Jeff Blehar is *BOX OFFICE POISON* (@EsotericCD) April 29, 2023
For example, I'm being told now that it's a "scandal" (?) that John Roberts' wife works in legal placement and recruiting.
Uh. Why? Why is that a scandal? Only idiots or the dishonest would think that a problem. (Lawyers all know: no conflict.) Should she have quit her job?
— Jeff Blehar is *BOX OFFICE POISON* (@EsotericCD) April 29, 2023
As we just saw, the whistleblower’s lawyer admitted there was no conflict.
The point is, of course, to just create a cloudburst of stories whose substance doesn't have to be accurate: instead, it just creates a 'stink' around the court and activates the "where there's smoke there's fire" instinct in the average Joe. That's the play. Smart but cynical.
— Jeff Blehar is *BOX OFFICE POISON* (@EsotericCD) April 29, 2023
How many people just assumed Trump was peeing in bed with the Russians because of "all those stories?" (Christ, how many *still* think that? It's flat-eartherism made respectable.) That's the cloudburst effect. You hear the charge. You never hear the exoneration.
— Jeff Blehar is *BOX OFFICE POISON* (@EsotericCD) April 29, 2023
Professor Bernstein agreed:
This is obviously true. The only story that should have any legs is the Crowe-Thomas connection, which should lead the Court itself to limit Justices' consumption of "hospitality" from rich folks. Every other story that's come out ranges from trivial to bogus. https://t.co/GTStudNEZW
— David Bernstein (@ProfDBernstein) April 29, 2023
Someone tried to rebut the claim that this is politics:
Do you think the “centrally coordinated campaign” idea is obviously true? My default explanation for all media I think is bogus is “they’re doing it for the clicks.” And these stories certainly get clicks.
— Maggie Wittlin (@maggiewittlin) April 29, 2023
A different Professor set her straight:
Then why omit equivalent info about liberal justices? And why have so many of the stories been so sloppy?
— Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) April 29, 2023
What info has been omitted?
— Eric Columbus (@EricColumbus) April 29, 2023
KBJ's repeated omissions about spouse's work and income, SS corrections on paid travel, RBG not recusing when spouse's firm was party to a case, etc.
(To be clear, most of this is not a big deal; the double standard is though. )— Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) April 29, 2023
Indeed, people who are currently criticizing Roberts for his wife’s behavior walked right past the even more questionable conduct of Ruth Bader Ginsburg Saint Ruth Bader of Ginsburg. Her husband worked for law firms that had business before the Supreme Court:
Just wait until Politico learns that a justice routinely decided cases in which spouse's law firm was counsel for parties or amici–and even one in which law firm was actual defendant.
Oh, never mind. That was RBG.
See point 3 here. https://t.co/JQxTsR3pYD
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) April 25, 2023
This is not about principle. This is about power, about destroying the Supreme Court as an institution so that nothing can stand in the left’s way.
Senator Warren seeks to destroy the judiciary while Chief Justice Roberts refuses to testifyhttps://t.co/sQ68roHY7w
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) April 27, 2023
Nothing good can come from that outcome.
***
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member