rules and there s the wife of the supreme court justice on one of the organizations involved in it on taking on a side. any other court, a lower court and either the judge would have to recuse or the brief would be struck or there will be a basically outcry and would have to back off. it is not the kind of behavior that s allowed in this country except at the supreme court that polices the ethics and no way to do anything about it unless you impeach a justice which is something that s not been attempted since 1804. i don t think we are likely to see that but it is incredible and at a time when the polls show esteem for the supreme court is at an all-time low because many americans think it
through the process of impeachment which for reasons passing my understanding we have not used against the supreme court justice since 1804, i believe. so like that is the baseline here. right? the supreme court is not subjct to any ethics rules. the highly inappropriate behavior that the mayor honestly if you haven t read the article, the mayor talks like she s been following this couple for 30 years. it s an amazing article. it is. ginni thomas is a problem for 30 years and the problem is not this is important to say because i don t want people to get it twisted. i would never come on your show and criticize a spouse of an important person for continuing to have a job. that the spouses should still have a job no matter how important their spouse is. the problem is not ginni thomas has a job. the problem is that ginni thomas
it hasn t so far. but, again, we have not seen any conflict of interest that is quite this glaring. so far, you know, the code of ethics in issues, they tend to die out. there is a sense that, i mean, there s only been one ever to impeach a supreme court justice, that was an 1804. and it failed. and ever since then, there s been a sense that the branch has to remain independence and police itself, at the highest level, that is at the supreme court level. but again, there is a law on the books that deals with the idea of any judge, including a justice, hearing a case involving his wife. that exists. congress has passed. it s a bit more serious this time. it s not just a matter of the appearance of conflict. there may be an actual conflict. jen, we appreciate it.
for hearings. they could try to push to try to get some information about how he is making his decisions they could pressure on the chief justice john roberts to try to pressure clarence thomas. there are a lot of things that can happen. but i think there is a sense, as professor gillers told me, this is a game-changer. well. there s been some discussion about congress, as you said, passing a code of ethics for supreme court justices. does that have legs? it hasn t so far. but, again, we have not seen any conflict of interest that is quite this glaring. so far, you know, the code of ethics in issues, they tend to die out. there is a sense that, i mean , there s only been one ever to impeach a supreme court justice , that was an 1804. and it failed.
want to move the mic or whatnot, and keep it going. even though in our history. only one supreme court justice has been impeached. that was in 1804. i still think it would be good for someone to introduce articles of impeachment, to lay out this abuse of power for everyone to see. would you. two things here. on a lighter note, people can see how focused you are, because you know the dates from the 19th century of history, even as we have our technical difficulties. you re better at this than me. the second point is more serious. i know you care about this institution a lot. i know you have approved a lot of judges from the opposing party. this is not about partisanship. you were in the senate a long time. you re saying, though, that your read here is, this is a