‘The View’ Accuses Gorsuch, Federalist Society of Breaking Ethics, Tax Laws

After spending mere seconds addressing co-host Whoopi Goldberg’s two-week suspension from The View, the coven tried to divert attention from their bad behavior by trying to cook up some against conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and the conservative Federalist Society; baselessly suggesting they were engaged in a “quid-pro-quo” and breaking federal tax laws governing the operations of non-profits.

Joy Behar, co-host of the conversation was appalled by the idea that a right-leaning organisation would allow right-leaning individuals to speak.

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court Justice, is catching up with some of the most prominent conservatives at an event hosted by the Federalist Society.. Ex-VP Mike Pence, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Kayleigh McEnany (ex-Trump Press Secretary) are some of the other speakers. One item on the docket is a talk titled: “The End of Roe v. Wade?” And it’s being moderated by a Trump-appointed federal judge.

Behar found it odd that “the media is barred” from the private event and wondered: “Should a Supreme Court Justice be allowed to participate in such a group of partisans? Does that sound kosher to you? I don’t know the rule.”

Co-host Sara Haines admitted she didn’t know either, but that didn’t stop her from suggesting Gorsuch was supposedly contributing to the sullying of the Supreme Court and breaking rules about getting paid to do so:

A judge is referring to how they read the Constitution when they say they are liberal or conservative. And a lot of lawyers will correct you and say, “no, it’s not.”

I know there a politics involved here, but it’s supposed to remain – kind of have a clean reputation, and it has for a long time based on precedent. It’s gradually changing. It’s a shame to be invited to such an extreme event.I agree, I feel, and because there is no transparency in the process, there aren’t any media outlets — I wonder if anyone gets paid.

Co-hosts and lawyers Sunny Hostin and Tara Setmayer (the “conservative” on the panel) informed Haines that “they’re not allowed” to be paid, but left the door open to the idea that Gorsuch was.

Ignoring the fact that late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would attend events by the Federalist Society’s liberal counterpart the American Constitution Society and Justice Sonia Sotomayor speaks with left-wing partisans like Stephen Colbert, Behar and Hostin played the ‘how would conservatives respond, if’ game:

BEHAR: Would conservatives like it if Sonia Sotomayor visited a Planned Parenthood rally, as you imagine?

HOSTIN : This would cause a serious problem. And I think Sara’s absolutely right. It’s obvious that there has been some erosion when it comes down to having the court members speak publically and at these partisan events.

Here’s a hint: they didn’t care.

Setmayer started her remarks by complaining that Gorsuch was making retiring Justice Stephen Breyer sad with his speaking engagement. She then pivoted to proving she doesn’t understand tax law by accusing the Federalist Society of breaking the law with lists of preferred judicial nominees:

SETMAYER : They oftentimes contributed lists of potential judges to federal judges or the Supreme Court.

HOSTIN: For the Supreme Court.

SETMAYER: They are a non-profit organization. They are a 501(c). Which means they’re not supposed to engage in overt political activity.

BEHAR

SETMAYER: It’s true. It’s problematic, I believe.

In reality, 501(c)3s do have the ability to lobby for their causes but they can’t campaign for a particular political candidate running for office. Liberal judicial advocacy groups have done the exact same thing to their favorite judicial nominees.

But the facts didn’t stop Hostin from bloviating about how the list former President Trump received for nominees “It was conservative. It was far-right. It’s something I had never seen before.” And before they switched topics, she got in one more jab suggesting Gorsuch was breaking ethics rules.

This was possible thanks to the lucrative sponsorships of Progressive and Olay. This link contains their contact information.

You can find the transcript below. To read it, please click on “expand”.

ABC’s The View
February 2, 2022
Eastern at 11:01 p.m.

JOY BEAR: Welcome to the Joy Behar! The View. The news was all over the internet. Whoopi will be here again in just two weeks. Okay. Tara Setmayer has returned to guest co-host, so let’s get to hot topics ladies. We’ll start.

SARA HAINES – Yes.

SUNNY HOSTIN

BEHAR: Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch, is catching up with conservative luminaries at an event organized by the Federalist Society. Former VP Mike Pence and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis are among the other speakers. Kayleigh McEnany, former Trump Press Secretary, is also on the agenda. One item on the docket is a talk titled: “The End of Roe v. Wade?” And it’s being moderated by a Trump-appointed federal judge.

Also, you must know that media cannot attend this event. My question is to the ladies: Should a Supreme Court justice participate in this partisan group? That is kosher. I’m not familiar with the rules.

HAINES – I’m not sure. First, and this is the one I think should be said. This comes at a moment when the court has become more political than ever. A poll found that 64 percent of respondents believed it was a political organization, something which is not surprising given its apolitical past.

A judge is referring to how they read the Constitution when they say they are liberal or conservative. And a lot of lawyers will correct you and say, “no, it’s not.”

I know there a politics involved here, but it’s supposed to remain – kind of have a clean reputation, and it has for a long time based on precedent. It’s gradually changing. To attend an event so politically leaning I think — and with the lack transparency, no media present — I am curious if they get compensated.

HOSTIN: No, they’re not allowed to get paid.

TARA SETMAYER: They don’t. They are not permitted.

HOSTIN: They’re not allowed to get paid.

BEHAR: Would conservatives like it if Sonia Sotomayor visited a Planned Parenthood rally, as you imagine?

HOSTIN : This would cause a serious problem. And I think Sara’s absolutely right. There’s been an erosion in the court of having judges speak publically and at these partisan events.

I thought it was interesting because they are – they’re not bound by the code of judicial ethics that usually defines federal judges. They always refer to the code for direction. Scalia was interviewed for an interview around 2008. 60 Minutes. It was almost like an appointment TV. I’d never heard of them before.

Interviews have become more common since then (since 2008), but they are becoming more frequent. I think Sandra Day O’Connor gave an interview. RBG did something very unusual. She even made a documentary. In it, we watched her doing pushups with her trainer. All of a sudden, it happened.

BEHARL Isn’t it possible that she spoke about Trump as well? Was that what you meant?

HOSTIN: She spoke about Trump. She said something about Colin Kaepernick and immediately sort of backtracked and said, “I shouldn’t have said that.” Because they usually just let their opinions do the talking for them. That’s not the case anymore. And it’s – I think it has the appearance of impropriety for Justice Gorsuch.

HAINES: It is important to distinguish between interviews that allow you in on their lives and talk, and political events which are perceived as support groups.

BEHARL, without the press. This is the part I dislike.

[Crosstalk]

HAINES: It’s a kind of quid-pro-quo of sorts.

SETMAYER, There are many parts to this system that can be problematic. This is interesting, because Stephen Breyer — who has retired now — was one of these. He was an institutionist at the Supreme Court. To Sunny’s point. You should never cross certain protocol. You should not be involved in such partisan events. He’d probably frown at that.

The Federalist Society was once considered to be a main stream Republican group of lawyers.

BEHAR: Yeah.

SETMAYER : Many of the principles and interpretations of the Constitution that the Federalist Society held for me were in agreement with my judicial opinions. They were known to often contribute lists of potential Supreme Court judges as well as federal judges.

HOSTIN: For the Supreme Court.

SETMAYER: They are a non-profit organization. They are a 501(c). Which means they’re not supposed to engage overt political activity.

BEHAR

SETMAYER, Yes. This is problematic, I believe. It’s problematic because the Federalist Society holds a great deal of power in conservative legal circles. Gorsuch was suggested by them as a possible nominee. Similar with all the rest.

HOSTIN: A list was given to Donald Trump by the federal judges.

SETMAYER: That’s correct and they got their wish.

HOSTIN: That list is so conservative. It was extreme. It’s something I had never seen before.

BEHAR: In this context of opposing Roe v. Wade

SETMAYER: This is the – The problem here – I mean, usually when Supreme Court justices would speak it was in an academic setting. Right? This is something that no one can have a problem.

HOSTIN: No.

SETMAYER This is so clearly political. It’s problematic, I believe. However, it does show you the consequences of elections.

BEHAR: Is it possible to go somewhere else?

[Crosstalk]

HOSTIN: I just want to add that it’s federal judge’s code of ethics prevents.