In 2005, President George W. Bush’s nominee, John Roberts, became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Five years later, just over one quarter of the country (27%) disapproved of him. By last year, that disapproval number had risen to nearly half the nation: 46%.

Since 2021, Gallup reports, the Supreme Court’s disapproval rating has consistently remained in the mid to upper 50s—a roughly ten-point increase compared to the previous decade. The majority of Americans have an apparent growing dissatisfaction with a court that wields ultimate authority while becoming increasingly secretive and activist on some of the nation’s most consequential issues.

While the Supreme Court’s job is not to make decisions based on popularity contests, it relies on the other two branches of the federal government to enforce its rulings. And when the Supreme Court’s credibility falls into question, some warn, our institutions may be at risk.

In October, Bloomberg Opinion’s Noah Feldman warned the Supreme Court’s “legitimacy crisis is getting worse.”

READ MORE: ‘Two Things Could Be True’: White House Reveals Why Hunter Pardon Might Not Have Happened

“Democrats’ faith in the court began to fail after the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, then went into freefall over the last couple of years,” Feldman wrote. “They worry the justices aren’t sufficiently ethical. They deplore the eagerness of the court’s conservative majority to overturn 50 years of precedent on issues like abortion and affirmative action. They are appalled at the court’s defiance of originalism — the idea that Constitutional law should rest on the document’s original meaning — to grant criminal immunity to former President Donald Trump for official acts while president.”

Nearly two years ago the Alliance for Justice (AFJ), a progressive coalition of nearly 140 organizations “advocating for a fair and independent justice system,” published a piece warning that the Supreme Court was “destroying its own legitimacy.”

“The Court’s wounds are entirely self-inflicted,” William W. Taylor, III, wrote at the AFJ. “It has a far-right agenda and the scholarship informing its decisions is often questionable. Worse, new details have come to light of relationships some justices have had with wealthy ideological soulmates, including those with interest in cases before the Court. The Court’s credibility and the public’s acceptance of its decisions depends upon trust that it is not subject to outside influence. While lobbying may be common and acceptable in the legislative and executive branches, it is not — nor ought not to be — conceivable in our courts.”

The New York Times on Tuesday took a deep dive into the behind-the-scenes conversations at the end of the summer of 2023 among the Supreme Court justices as they weighed whether or not to establish a code of ethics, amid a nation angered by numerous reports of what many see as blatant corruption.

“Last year, pressure on the court and the chief justice intensified. Journalists revealed that Justice Thomas had accepted far more largess from Harlan Crow, a conservative donor, than he had disclosed, including decades of travel on private jets and a superyacht, and boarding school tuition for his grandnephew. The public uproar also reflected another concern: Virginia Thomas, his wife, had been involved in Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election,” The Times reports.

“Faced with ethics controversies and a plunge in public trust, they were debating rules for their own conduct, according to people familiar with the process,” The Times adds, revealing that “behind the scenes, the court had divided over whether the justices’ new rules could — or should — ever be enforced.”

In the end, the justices all signed onto a new code of ethics for the nation’s highest court, but one that “had no means of enforcement.”

It was quickly criticized.

READ MORE: Why the Hunter Biden Pardon Is ‘Justified’ According to Legal Experts

Liberals on the court have since gone public with their apparent frustration that although there is finally a code of ethics, there is no way to enforce it.

“All three liberals — Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson — supported enforcement, The Times reports.

“Rules usually have enforcement mechanisms attached to them, and this one — this set of rules — does not,” Justice Elena Kagan said in July.

“I haven’t seen a good reason why the ethics code that the Supreme Court adopted shouldn’t be enforceable,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson  said. “Other justices have posited certain ways in which it could be made enforceable but we have not yet determined or decided to do that.”

By contrast, at least some of the majority right-wing justices appear opposed to any code, certainly one that would have methods of enforcement.

“In the private exchanges, Justice Clarence Thomas, whose decision not to disclose decades of gifts and luxury vacations from wealthy benefactors had sparked the ethics controversy, and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote off the court’s critics as politically motivated and unappeasable,” The Times revealed. “Justice Gorsuch was especially vocal in opposing any enforcement mechanism beyond voluntary compliance, arguing that additional measures could undermine the court. The justices’ strength was their independence, he said, and he vowed to have no part in diminishing it.”

The Times also reveals that the justices “seemed to codify their own preferences” when they drafted, or signed off on the code of ethics.

Those preferences appear largely financial.

The justices “gave themselves no firm restrictions on gifts, travel or real estate deals. Nothing in the new rules appears aimed directly at the trips and gifts Justice Thomas accepted. The code says only that justices should uphold the dignity of the office and comply with existing gift guidelines, in separate federal rules, which make allowances for ‘personal hospitality.’ Justice Thomas has maintained that his nondisclosure of gifts and free travel did not violate those rules,” according to The Times. Other legal experts disagree, with some saying he broke the law.

Since signing the new code of ethics, “questions about the justices’ behavior have continued. The Times revealed that two provocative flags associated with the Jan. 6 riot had flown at the homes of Justice Alito and his wife. The second was displayed at his New Jersey beach house just as the justices were considering the new ethics rules. That summer, he also accepted concert tickets from a far-right German princess. He later disclosed those, but in keeping with the new rules, said nothing about his free stay at her 500-room Bavarian palace.”

Last month, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), among the Senate’s top proponents of Supreme Court reform, wrote: “As long as the Court maintains a secretive billionaire gifts program for justices and unique immunity from ethics scrutiny for itself, and as long as its decisions predictably align with those billionaire interests, its reputation will continue to crash.”

READ MORE: This Michigan Lawmaker Wants to ‘Make Gay Marriage Illegal Again’

Several key and influential Republican Senators are helping to support former U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz‘s efforts to be confirmed as President-elect Donald Trump’s Attorney General, despite credible allegations he allegedly had sex with a minor, sex trafficked a minor, paid to have sex with at least two women, engaged in illicit drug use, and other damning claims.

The House Ethics Committee had been investigating Gaetz for years over the numerous allegations, including, it announced, that he “may have engaged in sexual misconduct and/or illicit drug use, shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misused state identification records, converted campaign funds to personal use, and/or accepted a bribe, improper gratuity, or impermissible gift, in violation of House Rules, laws, or other standards of conduct.”

Bipartisan concerns have grown, including from U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD), who suggested last week the Ethics Committee’s report on Gaetz could be subpoenaed if it is not released. Two other Senators on Tuesday came out to support the Florida Republican who abruptly resign from the House of Representatives just two days before the Ethics Committee was to be vote on releasing its report.

The U.S. Dept. of Justice also reportedly investigated Gaetz, but declined to file charges.

READ MORE: ‘Someone Who Says Tap Water Turns Kids Gay’: House Dem Slams ‘Insane’ Trump Cabinet Picks

While they did not state they support Gaetz’s nomination, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) did offer their fellow Senators reasons to not reject Gaetz.

Asked if Gaetz is qualified to serve as Attorney General, Senator Graham, who has strong ties to Donald Trump, did not answer CNN’s Manu Raju’s question but instead declared, “No one should be disqualified because of a media report.”

The allegations are not media reports. The two women who allege Gaetz paid them for sex gave sworn testimony before both federal prosecutors and the House Ethics Committee, according to their attorney. Another allegation comes from at least one of Gaetz’s fellow members of Congress.

Senator Hawley told CNN that Gaetz “said he wants a shot to lay out his vision for the Department, and also to respond to these various allegations. You know, I said, ‘Hey, the confirmation hearing is the place and the chance to do that.'”

As far back as President John Adams in 1801, over a dozen controversial nominees for Senate-confirmable roles, especially Cabinet-level positions, by presidents from both parties, have been pulled before they get to a full confirmation vote to avoid a massive embarrassment that could weaken an incoming administration. Among them, three from Donald Trump’s first term in office: Andrew Puzder (Labor), Ronny Jackson (VA), and Chad Wolfe (DHS).

READ MORE: ‘Damaging’: Unredacted Sealed Sworn Testimony in Gaetz Case Accessed by Alleged Hacker

But Donald Trump has been adamant about having Gaetz serve as his Attorney General.

If confirmed, Gaetz would become the nation’s top law enforcement officer.

CNN’s Manu Raju describes the current state of support from the GOP for Gaetz as “soft,” but he notes Gaetz and Vice President-elect JD Vance on Wednesday “will be on Capitol Hill, meeting with Republicans including Senator John Kennedy [R-LA] who sits on that key Senate Judiciary Committee … to get Republicans to fall in line.”

Watch CNN’s report below or at this link.

Asked Lindsey Graham if the sexual misconduct allegations involving Gaetz, including sex with a minor (which Gaetz denies), gives him pause, Graham said: “Nobody should be disqualified because of a media report.” pic.twitter.com/ZOiFZKyV3u

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) November 19, 2024

READ MORE: Nancy Mace Slammed for Trying to Ban First Trans Member of Congress From Restrooms

Image via Shutterstock

As Election Day fast approaches, Donald Trump is suffering yet another self-inflicted wound. The Republican presidential nominee’s vow to “protect” women, “whether the women like it or not,” is leading critics to say it reminds them of his 2016 “Access Hollywood” tape comments and showcases his refusal to understand the concept of consent.

Trump is an adjudicated rapist, and a has been convicted of 34 felony charges in a “scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex.” He is awaiting sentencing and additional trials in both state and federal courts—which may never come if he wins re-election.

On Wednesday he stood before supporters in Green Bay, Wisconsin, wearing a safety vest after being driven around a parking lot in a white garbage truck with the “TRUMP” logo on it. He told a story describing himself from “about four weeks ago,” arguing with his advisors, saying, “I’m president. I want to protect the women of our country”:

“And my people told me about four weeks ago, I would say, ‘no, I want to protect the people. I want to protect the women of our country. I want to protect the women.’ ‘Sir, please don’t say that.’ ‘Why?’ They said, ‘we think it’s, we think it’s very inappropriate for you to say.’ ‘Why? I’m president. I want to protect the women of our country.’ They said, They said, ‘sure, I just think it’s inappropriate for you to say’ — I pay these guys a lot of money. Can you believe it?”

READ MORE: ‘I’m Not Hitler’: Trump Insists He’s Being ‘Demonized’ Despite Remarks

“I said, ‘well, I’m gonna do it whether the women like it or not. I’m gonna protect them. I’m gonna protect them from migrants coming in. I’m gonna protect them from foreign countries that wanna hit a hit us with missiles and lots of other things.'”

Backlash was swift.

Daily Kos chief content officer Kaili Joy Gray responded to a clip of Trump’s remarks and invoked his infamous words from the “Access Hollywood” tape. She wrote:

“I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

She continued, writing, “That nauseous feeling so many of us had in 2016 when we heard the tape of Trump bragging about assaulting women … Listening to him threaten to ‘protect’ us against our will REALLY brings it all back.”

“The women do not like it,” she added. “They never have. And on Tuesday, they have their greatest chance to tell him no. No, he can’t do whatever he wants. No, he cannot get away with it. Not anymore. It’s over. For good.”

“This is Donald Trump’s sick, sadistic closing argument in the final days of his third presidential run,” she wrote at Daily Kos, “a threat against the women of America.”

Others also saw a similarity.

Calling it, “a pithy encapsulation of the concerns that are spurring a lot of women’s votes,” Washington Post columnist Philip Bump also invoked the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape. He noted that Trump’s promise to “protect” women “sounds an awful lot like the audio recording that nearly doomed Trump’s presidential campaign eight years ago.”

But Bump told readers it would be “too crass to articulate exactly how groping or assaulting a woman comports with the phrase Trump used at his rally in Wisconsin.”

Also responding to Trump’s remarks from Wednesday, David Simon, the author, journalist and TV writer/producer known for “The Wire,” observed: “Women are today dying of sepsis explicitly because he ended Roe, for which he proudly credits himself. Consent remains an elusive concept for this fellow.”

MSNBC legal contributor and correspondent Katie Phang wrote, “Trump’s nonconsensual ‘protection’ is a hard pass.”

Dr. Jennifer Mercieca, professor and historian of American political rhetoric, wrote simply, “Trump‘s kinda rapey.” 

Back in September, Trump had made similar remarks, vowing: “I will protect women at a level never seen before.”

“Women are poorer than they were four years ago, are less healthy than they were four years ago, are less safe on the streets than they were four years ago, are more depressed and unhappy than they were four years ago, and are less optimistic and confident in the future than they were four years ago!” claimed Trump via social media, in a single all-caps paragraph.

“I will fix all of that, and fast, and at long last this national nightmare will be over. Women will be happy, healthy, confident and free! You will no longer be thinking about abortion, because it is now where it always had to be, with the states, and a vote of the people – and with powerful exceptions, like those that Ronald Reagan insisted on, for rape, incest, and the life of the mother – but not allowing for Democrat demanded late term abortion in the 7th, 8th, or 9th month, or even execution of a baby after birth. I will protect women at a level never seen before. They will finally be healthy, hopeful, safe, and secure. their lives will be happy, beautiful, and great again!”

READ MORE: ‘I Don’t Know Anything About the Comedian’: Trump Pleads Ignorance as Backlash Grows

Professor of public policy and former U.S. Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, at the time responded to Trump’s remarks: “Donald Trump posted this unhinged, all-caps rant about how only he can make women happy and ‘PROTECT’ them. Remember, he’s an adjudicated rapist, accused of sexual assault or misconduct by more than 20 women, and he’s the reason that one-in-three adult women now live under a Trump abortion ban that puts their lives at risk.”

Also last month, in a New York Times opinion piece, contributing editor Jessica Bennett wrote: “Depending on how you count them, 19 or 26 or 67 women have accused Mr. Trump of sexual misconduct. Women who have said he ‘squeezed my butt,’ ‘eyed me like a piece of meat,’ ‘stuck his hand up my skirt,’ ‘thrust his genitals,’ ‘forced his tongue in my mouth,’ was ‘rummaging around my vagina,’ and so on.”

“So about five years ago, toward the end of Mr. Trump’s presidency, 10 of these women formed a little club of sorts, a sisterhood meets therapy circle meets support group — one with a hideous initiation.”

As for Trump’s vow—or threat—to protect women, “whether the women like it or not,” media critic Jennifer Schulze declared, “Quite a closing argument from an adjudicated rapist.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Trump: “I want to protect the women of our country … I’m gonna do it whether the women like it or not” pic.twitter.com/mfMEpaWEAX

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 31, 2024

READ MORE: Former Top Trump White House Official Called for ‘Male Only’ Voting