jansing in new york city. warning signs in the economy as worries about a recession, interest rates and the debt limit shave hundreds of punts points off the dow. now with a standoff over how to pay the nation s debts, will things get worse before they get better? and why wait until next week to find out? plus, no chief justice, no problem. senate democrats slam the supreme court as they push ahead with a hearing on ethics, even after john roberts declines to show up. chairman dick durbin arguing the justices ethical standards shouldn t be acceptable at a local city council, let alone the highest court in the land. and as the texas manhunt stretches into a fourth day, haunting new questions from family members about whether the police could have caught the suspect at the scene or stopped him before he started the massacre. i ll talk to a former police chief about what should have happened once those 911 calls started coming in. but we begin with congress and the white
states of america does not consider itself bound by the rules. ali vitali is on capitol hill and eugene robinson is back. ali, what ethical questions are being raised in this hearing? reporter: what we heard this refrain time and again from democratic lawmakers, the highest court in the land should be subjected to the highest ethical rules that govern it. that s not what they feel that they have right now and we know already that chairman dick durbin tried to invite chief justice john roberts to testify at this hearing, roberts, of course, responded in a letter saying he would decline that invitation. and in the wake of him saying no to coming to this, durbin proceeding as i imagine he would have even if the chief justice was there in that he and other democrats are highlighting the ways that ethics reforms need to take place here and that if the court won t do that themselves, congress is happy to step in, even though they re chagrinned to have to do so. but on the other side of t
lot. and frankly it has nothing to do with partisanship. it does have something to do with some of the decisions the court has made recently that are extremely unpopular. and leading, you know, first among them, the dobbs decision on abortion is extremely unpopular in the country. and that tends to rob the court of legitimacy. now, it is and that s just a fact. it is not something that democrats are doing or democratic senators are doing or anybody is doing, it is something the court did. and that on top of that you have the ethics revelations about justice thomas, and the free travel and goodies accepted from a texas billionaire without disclosing them and you got a problem. and the court needs to address this problem. i can t imagine why chief justice roberts because after
the court itself would impose a really strict set of standards, enforceable standards that judges that justices have to live by. and the court refuses to do that. and i don t understand why. but i think it is appropriate for the senate to look into it. i frankly don t know, again, for separation of powers reasons, i don t know exactly what congress can do and it would be somewhat preferable if the court would do itself, but the court seems unable to move. as we watch senator whitehouse there and some remarks here, maybe part of his questioning, eugene, saying you don t necessarily know what will happen in congress, what the appetite is, do you expect anything in the way of reform and if not, has the public s trust in the supreme court regulating itself eroded a bit after this? no, i think the public s trust in the court has eroded a
all, it is his court, this is the roberts court, i can t understand why he doesn t make this a priority and get it done. so, eugene, given the checks and balances that we re supposed to have in this country, how significant is it that they didn t agree to appear today? i actually i understand that in the context of checks and balances and separation of powers, right, because, you know, one branch is lone to interfere with the management of another branch. the supreme court doesn t tell the senate what rules to set or whether the filibuster is constitutional or anything like that. and so the court looks at the senate and says, look, you don t tell us how to govern ourselves, how to set ethics rules. and that s all well and good if each branch does what is needed