>> WE ARE BACK WITH MICHAEL WALDEN. WALDEN. WELCOME, MICHAEL. WELCOME, MICHAEL. >> GREAT TO BE WITH YOU. >> GREAT TO BE WITH YOU. >> YOU WROTE THE SUPREME COURT >> YOU WROTE THE SUPREME COURT JAMMED THREE DECADES OF SOCIAL JAMMED THREE DECADES OF SOCIAL JUSTICE CASES IN A WEEK. JUSTICE CASES IN A WEEK. >> THE LIFE TIME JUSTICES, OF >> THE LIFE TIME JUSTICES, OF COURSE, THEY OVERTURNED ROE V. COURSE, THEY OVERTURNED ROE V. WADE, UNDOING ABORTION RIGHTS WADE, UNDOING ABORTION RIGHTS THAT WOMEN HAD TRUSTED IN THE THAT WOMEN HAD TRUSTED IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR HALF A CENTURY. CONSTITUTION FOR HALF A CENTURY. THEY ISSUED THE MOST SWEEPING THEY ISSUED THE MOST SWEEPING SECOND AMENDMENT RULING EVER SECOND AMENDMENT RULING EVER SAYING BASICALLY THAT YOU CANNOT SAYING BASICALLY THAT YOU CANNOT CONSIDER PUBLIC SAFETY. CONSIDER PUBLIC SAFETY. THEY MADE IT MUCH HARDER FOR THEY MADE IT MUCH HARDER FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO PROTECT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND DO OTHER THE ENVIRONMENT AND DO OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT. THINGS LIKE THAT. THEY CRAMMED DECADES OF SOCIAL THEY CRAMMED DECADES OF SOCIAL CHANGE INTO THOSE THREE DAYS CHANGE INTO THOSE THREE DAYS AFFECTING MILLIONS OF LIVES AND AFFECTING MILLIONS OF LIVES AND MORE TO COME. MORE TO COME. >> MORE TO COME. >> MORE TO COME. WE'LL HAVE MORE DECISIONS COMING WE'LL HAVE MORE DECISIONS COMING LATER THIS MONTH. LATER THIS MONTH. OF COURSE THAT ROE V. WADE OF COURSE THAT ROE V. WADE DECISION WAS PRECEDED BY AN DECISION WAS PRECEDED BY AN UNBELIEVABLE LEAK. UNBELIEVABLE LEAK. WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT? WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT? >> WELL, THEY RELY ON SILENCE ON >> WELL, THEY RELY ON SILENCE ON BEING TREATED AS A COURT ON BEING TREATED AS A COURT ON TRUST. TRUST. IT HELPED COLLAPSE PUBLIC TRUST IT HELPED COLLAPSE PUBLIC TRUST IN THE COURT THAT THE OPINION IN THE COURT THAT THE OPINION LEAKED. LEAKED. THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER LEAKS IN THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER LEAKS IN THE COUNTRY'S HISTORY BEFORE. THE COUNTRY'S HISTORY BEFORE. EVEN THE DREAD SCOTT RULING WAY EVEN THE DREAD SCOTT RULING WAY BACK WHEN. BACK WHEN. IT'S PART OF THE KIND OF IT'S PART OF THE KIND OF POLITICS ENGULFING THE COURT POLITICS ENGULFING THE COURT WHERE THEY ARE ATTACKING EACH WHERE THEY ARE ATTACKING EACH OTHER AND THE PUBLIC IS NOT OTHER AND THE PUBLIC IS NOT SEEING THEM AS NOT POLITICS BUT SEEING THEM AS NOT POLITICS BUT PART OF IT. PART OF IT. >> CLARENCE THOMAS IS FACING >> CLARENCE THOMAS IS FACING QUESTIONS ABOUT UNETHICS BECAUSE QUESTIONS ABOUT UNETHICS BECAUSE HE RECEIVED SOME PAYMENTS, SOME HE RECEIVED SOME PAYMENTS, SOME GIFTS FROM A BIG REPUBLICAN GIFTS FROM A BIG REPUBLICAN DONOR. DONOR. IS THERE ANY WAY TO POLICE THIS IS THERE ANY WAY TO POLICE THIS FAMOUSLY SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FAMOUSLY SUPREME COURT JUSTICES DON'T LIVE UNDER THE SAME ETHICS DON'T LIVE UNDER THE SAME ETHICS GUIDELINES OTHER JUDGES DO. GUIDELINES OTHER JUDGES DO. >> I THINK NOBODY IS SO WISE >> I THINK NOBODY IS SO WISE THAT THEY SHOULD BE THE JUDGE IN THAT THEY SHOULD BE THE JUDGE IN THEIR OWN CASE. THEIR OWN CASE. THE SUPREME COURT NEEDS A THE SUPREME COURT NEEDS A BINDING ETHICS CODE JUST THE BINDING ETHICS CODE JUST THE SAME WAY ALL THE OTHER COURTS SAME WAY ALL THE OTHER COURTS HAVE. HAVE. CONGRESS CAN DO IT OR THE COURT CONGRESS CAN DO IT OR THE COURT CAN DO IT ITSELF. CAN DO IT ITSELF. I THINK ALSO THAT THERE OUGHT TO I THINK ALSO THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE 18 YEAR TERM LIMITS FOR BE 18 YEAR TERM LIMITS FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. GEORGE WASHINGTON HAD THE GEORGE WASHINGTON HAD THE INSIGHT THAT NOBODY SHOULD HAVE INSIGHT THAT NOBODY SHOULD HAVE TOO MUCH PUBLIC POWER FOR TOO TOO MUCH PUBLIC POWER FOR TOO LONG WHEN HE STEPPED DOWN. LONG WHEN HE STEPPED DOWN. THAT'S A BROAD IDEA THAT'S VERY THAT'S A BROAD IDEA THAT'S VERY POPULAR ON LEFT AND RIGHT IN POPULAR ON LEFT AND RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY. THIS COUNTRY. >> POPULAR ON LEFT AND RIGHT. >> POPULAR ON LEFT AND RIGHT. ANY REAL CHANCE THAT THIS COULD ANY REAL CHANCE THAT THIS COULD HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON? HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON? >> IT COULD BE DONE BY >> IT COULD BE DONE BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. THE MORE PEOPLE SEE THIS COURT THE MORE PEOPLE SEE THIS COURT AS OUT OF TOUCH AS RADICAL IN AS OUT OF TOUCH AS RADICAL IN SOME INSTANCES, AS UP ENDING SOME INSTANCES, AS UP ENDING THEIR LIVES OR UP ENDING THEIR LIVES OR UP ENDING POLITICS THE MORE PRESSURE POLITICS THE MORE PRESSURE THERE'S GOING TO BE FOR ACTION THERE'S GOING TO BE FOR ACTION FOR THE REFORM OF THE COURT. FOR THE REFORM OF THE COURT. >> THE CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, >> THE CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, IT'S NOT REALLY HIS COURT, IS IT'S NOT REALLY HIS COURT, IS IT? IT? >> WE GIVE IT THAT NAME AS A >> WE GIVE IT THAT NAME AS A CONVENIENCE. CONVENIENCE. HE'S ON ONE VOTE. HE'S ON ONE VOTE. HE HOLDS THE GAVEL. HE HOLDS THE GAVEL. IN A LOT OF WAYS CLARENCE THOMAS IN A LOT OF WAYS CLARENCE THOMAS HOLDS THE POWER. HOLDS THE POWER. THE IDEA THAT THE ONLY WAY YOU THE IDEA THAT THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION CAN INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION IS TO ASK IN EFFECT WHAT IT IS TO ASK IN EFFECT WHAT IT MEANT IN 1791. MEANT IN 1791. THAT IS WHAT IS AFFECTING SO THAT IS WHAT IS AFFECTING SO MANY OF THESE RULINGS, AT LEAST MANY OF THESE RULINGS, AT LEAST IT'S THE ARGUMENT THAT'S BEING IT'S THE ARGUMENT THAT'S BEING MADE ONE AFTER ANOTHER IS THESE MADE ONE AFTER ANOTHER IS THESE RULINGS ARE ISSUED TO THE RULINGS ARE ISSUED TO THE PUBLIC. PUBLIC. >> YOU DON'T MINCE YOUR WORDS. >> YOU DON'T MINCE YOUR WORDS. YOU BELIEVE THE SUPREME COURT IS YOU BELIEVE THE SUPREME COURT IS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY? A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY? >> I THINK THE COUNTRY IS MOVING >> I THINK THE COUNTRY IS MOVING IN ONE DIRECTION OVER TIME AND IN ONE DIRECTION OVER TIME AND THE COURT IS VEERING SHARPLY IN THE COURT IS VEERING SHARPLY IN ANOTHER DIRECTION. ANOTHER DIRECTION. WHEN YOU HAVE THAT KIND OF GAP, WHEN YOU HAVE THAT KIND OF GAP, PUBLIC TRUST COLLAPSES AND IT PUBLIC TRUST COLLAPSES AND IT CAN REALLY CREATE A CRISIS. CAN REALLY CREATE A CRISIS. THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE ARE. THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE ARE. WE SAW THE RESPONSE IN THE MID WE SAW THE RESPONSE IN THE MID TERM ELECTIONS WHERE RESPONDING TERM ELECTIONS WHERE RESPONDING TO THE DOBBS CASE ON ABORTION TO THE DOBBS CASE ON ABORTION RIGHTS, DEMOCRATS HAD THE BEST RIGHTS, DEMOCRATS HAD THE BEST MID TERM ELECTION IN DECADES. MID TERM ELECTION IN DECADES. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO HAVE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO HAVE A SIMILAR CONSEQUENCE IN OTHER A SIMILAR CONSEQUENCE IN OTHER RACES IN 2024 AND BEYOND. RACES IN 2024 AND BEYOND. >> THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY WAY TO >> THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY WAY TO CHANGE THE COURT, RIGHT? CHANGE THE COURT, RIGHT? >> I THINK MORE THAN ANYTHING >> I THINK MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, WE THE PEOPLE NEED TO ELSE, WE THE PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS MATTERS A LOT. UNDERSTAND THIS MATTERS A LOT. I THINK CONSERVATIVES HAVE I THINK CONSERVATIVES HAVE UNDERSTOOD THIS FOR A LONG TIME. UNDERSTOOD THIS FOR A LONG TIME. I THINK LIBERALS NOW ARE BAKE UNDERSTOOD THIS FOR A LONG TIME. I THINK LIBERALS NOW ARE BAWAKIG UNDERSTOOD THIS FOR A LONG TIME. I THINK LIBERALS NOW ARE BAWAKI I THINK LIBERALS NOW ARE BAWAKI UP. UP. THE ACTIONS OF THE COURT SHOULD THE ACTIONS OF THE COURT SHOULD BE DEBATING WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE DEBATING WHETHER THEY SHOULD HAVE THESE LIFE TIME HAVE THESE LIFE TIME APPOINTMENTS AND THIS MUCH POWER APPOINTMENTS AND THIS MUCH POWER AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR OUR AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR OUR