Another week, another phony Supreme Court justice scandal covered by ABC’s The View. This one being especially , only Whoopi Goldberg tried to insist it was actually a scandal. On Tuesday morning’s segment, the group discussed a deceptive audio secretly taken in hopes of embarrassing both Justice Samuel Alito and his wife. The tape, being of no great consequence, only highlighting the justice’s faith, once again, sent Whoopi on a tangent, calling for the necessity of a class action suit! Surprisingly, many of the other hosts disagreed.
This secretly taped audio was taken by Lauren Windsor, a liberal activist, who specializes in the deception of politicians with her faux conservative persona and Whoopi wondered, “Why can’t we sue them in a class action suit?… I don’t know why you can’t pull a class action suit that says, listen, you are no longer doing the job you’re supposed to be doing. I don’t understand.”
She continues, complimenting Chief Justice Alito in handling the ill intentioned reporter:
It is surprising enough that Haines and Farah Griffin are so outspoken regarding the topic, especially as they, in many ways, have played into delegitimizing the Court in the many petty stories regarding the justices in the past few weeks. Yet, beyond the outrageous call for a class action lawsuit against the court made by Whoopi on Tuesday morning, The View was a pleasant surprise
The transcript is below. Click “expand” to read:
ABC’s The View
6/11/2024
11:04:03 AM EST
Run Time: 7 minutes 55 seconds
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: So if these recordings are legit, does this compromise finally Alito’s ability to serve on the Supreme Court?
JOY BEHAR: Well, I have to say I have a problem with it a little bit, because this other group, ‘Veritas’ –
GOLBERG: Yes, yes
BEHAR: – what are they called
GOLDBERG: You remember them, this is what they did.
BEHAR: – ‘Project Veritas’, it’s the same thing but they infiltrated liberals so it goes both ways.
GOLDBERG: Yeah
BEHAR: So, I have a little bit of a problem because it can be altered also. But the Supreme Court at the moment is so biased and so pro-theocracy as you saw in what we just watched, that somebody has to expose them because they are running around arrogant and they have the whole GOP on their side and we’re losing the Supreme Court’s objectivity and somebody needs to expose them. So, and they have no consequences whatsoever these people. They’re there for the rest of their lives.
GOLDBERG: Why can’t we sue them in a class action suit? Why can’t it be the U–
BEHAR: I’m not sure you can do that. They’re the highest court.
GOLDBERG: Yeah but I don’t know why? Listen, I don’t know why you can’t pull a class action suit that says, listen, you are no longer doing the job you’re supposed to be doing. I don’t understand.
BEHAR: The question is does Roberts have the “bazooz” – That’s the word I learned somewhere. But we all know what it is. The “bazooz” to tell these people to recuse themselves, especially in the cases of Trump.
SUNNY HOSTIN: Well you know I think it’s like corralling cats for Justice Roberts. I think he wants to maintain the integrity of the court. I think that’s very important to him. I think it’s very difficult with the composition of this particular court. It is a lifetime appointment. I am extremely disappointed at what I heard, but I also am not comfortable with snippets of tape recordings without consent being taken out of context.
BEHAR: It’s legal, right?
HOSTIN: It is legal if there is a one-party consent state and this is done in D.C., which it is a one-party consent district. My problem is, this happens to us at the table all the time. We have a full on conversation, someone takes a clip of what we say, they blow it out of proportion.
GOLDBERG: Do you think that’s what was here? You think this was blown out of proportion?
HOSTIN: Well, I didn’t hear – I didn’t hear everything and so I’m uncomfortable with this sort of hit job. But I will say this, in my lifetime as an attorney I never knew the religion of the Supreme Court Justices.
GOLDBERG: Never
HOSTIN: I never knew the political affiliations of the Supreme Court Justices. They are supposed to be the highest court in the land and really in the world, the world looks to the Supreme Court. And this kind of thing compromises the Supreme Court and Justice Sotomayor said it so well, “How does a Supreme Court recover from the stench coming from the court at this point?”
SARA HAINES: Well I think, Sunny what you’re saying is – I actually agree with both of you. I don’t like how these were obtained. I don’t think this woman presented as something she wasn’t, she lied then she did this gotcha moment. And I thought it was worse in the headlines than what I heard on the ground because I did listen to more of the tapes, and —
HOSTIN: Did you listen to all of them, though.
HAINES: What was posted.
HOSTIN: What was posted?
HAINES: All of them but is still a clip bit. But Alito goes on to say – it sounds like he’s Alito goes on to say, it sounds like he’s being polite to this woman because she seems a little nutty. She’s leading every question and he’s sitting there. Eventually he says, the Court has a limited role and Justice Roberts handled it like a pro and this is where you always talk, Sunny, as a lawyer, judges, they’re trained in this. They are allowed to be highly religious people and not then adjudicate in that same vein.
HOSTIN: And they should not.
HAINES: Justice Roberts says, at one point to this woman, presenting the same way trying to guide him down the road. He says, “I am not – you do not want me deciding morals in this country. That’s for your elected officials.” And then as she said she wanted to return to a Judeo-Christian or something Christian– and he said, “but I have Muslim friends, I have Jewish friends.”
So, I don’t know if this completely disqualifies and I think it’s, it is a little dangerous to dance into delegitimizing the highest court in the land. I don’t like the structure of it right now, but as we say about democracy and everything being up in flames, to do that to this court as we’re trying to reinstill faith in institutions, I don’t see it as egregious when I read into it.
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Well and I had the same take that I think Chief Justice Roberts answered the way I would have expected, any Supreme Court justice of all time to answer.
HOSTIN: Especially the chief justice.
FARAH GRIFFIN: Acknowledging the role of the court to uphold the law, to interpret the Constitution but decisions around the morality or direction of the country are left to Congress, the representatives of the people and I think people need this constant civic reminder of how our three branches of government work.
What I took issue with and I actually see — I agree with all on the — we’ve got to hear the whole thing and context – but I in general don’t like language that’s risen in this moment of political polarization where you talk about the other side as the enemy –
HOSTIN: Yes
FARAH GRIFFIN: – or as if we’re in a battle where both sides are actually active players with a valid role in American democracy. The religious right, the Muslim you know, the Muslim faith, these things have always existed in America and found ways to co-exist. The liberal left. And been able to say, like, you may have certain viewpoints we’re going find a place in the middle but the diminishing of one side as though they don’t have a role is dangerous and it’s dangerous if the left does it and where we say we need to eradicate, you know the Christian right as well —
GOLDBERG: I’m going to, I’m going to say, because I don’t agree with y’all which is unusual.
HOSTIN: The view.
GOLDBERG: That’s right, that’s what I always say. Because I listened to you all talk about how, you know, Democrats don’t get out there and they don’t — so, this woman got out there and did exactly what you all have been saying she should do.
HAINES: Not this way.
GOLDBERG: Well, that’s not — it never comes across that way. It comes across, they’re not doing it, why isn’t it happening and so I’m saying, here we are, someone has done the same thing that cinema veritas or whatever the name of that group is that really, you know, it’s not like we’re not aware that this money has gone through. You know, they’ve destroyed people.
HOSTIN: Yes.
GOLDBERG: Those people destroyed people so I’m not advocating that. I’m happy to finally hear someone say something that makes justice —
HAINES: Alito?
GOLDBERG: — Alito – and
HOSTIN: Roberts?
GOLDBERG: No.
BEHAR: Thomas.
GOLDBERG: Thomas. To explain how do you take that money from these people who are there for that reason? This whole — well, you know, it is a conversation that should be had and I know what the Justices are supposed to be doing. I remember as I’ve said to you many times, people get on as Supreme Court justices and they learn how to do the job.
HOSTIN: Yes.
GOLDBERG: Because we’ve had people who led the KKK, you know, we’ve had all kinds of people on the Supreme Court who get in there and then have to do it for the people.
BEHAR: Yeah.
GOLDBERG: Unfortunately, these two don’t seem to have that same kind of —
BEHAR: But they’re supposed to have a leader like Roberts who supposed to tell them things like that.
GOLDBERG: Well, yes, and they don’t seem to be paying attention. And this is when I, this is why I say I would like there to be some kind of thing that says, no, nobody gets away with this.
HOSTIN: Some sort of —
GOLDBERG: Some sort of consequence.
HOSTIN: – consequence. There is an ethics now.
GOLDBERG: I see it.
HOSTIN: There is an ethics rule.
GOLDBERG: I know.
BEHAR: Oh, you have a legal note.
HOSTIN: Oh I do. An ethics code now for the justices that has never been in existence and I think that’s a start but I agree with you. There must be consequences.
GOLDBERG: Has to be something.
HOSTIN: To reinstill the integrity of the court.
HAINES: And faith in the court.
HOSTIN: And faith in the court but I have a legal note.
GOLDBERG: Right, I know.
HOSTIN: Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito and his wife did not respond to requests for comment. The Supreme Court Historical Society condemned the recordings.
WHOOPI: We’ll be right back.