Justice Jackson 'calls out' Justices Alito and Thomas in scathing dissent, Weissmann says

Andrew, your reaction to what the Supreme Court did not decide today and what they did. So let's just start with the Snyder decision, the one that you're reading, the dissent from that Ponji Brown Jackson approached. It is something I really commend everyone to read. It's written in plain English and she takes the majority to task. And I had the exact same reaction that she was speaking about the Supreme Court itself, both to Justices Thomases and Alito in terms of the money that they have taken as public officials, but also to them in terms of saying, you know, you say you're originalist when it's convenient. That's this idea that we're just going to only look at the text. And she says, OK, let's look at the text. The text is a congressional statute that says it's illegal to pay bribes and to receive bribes and to get rewards. And she says, that's it, we're done. I thought you were a textualist. So she based. That's why she says only this Supreme Court. It is. This is supposed to be just interpreting congressional language. It is not a policy debate in the Supreme Court. And she calls them out saying you are having a policy debate and you lose even on the policy debate. I mean, who on God's green earth thinks it's fine to take a reward as long as you take the money afterwards, it's fine. Just don't take it before. But that's now the law based on this Supreme Court. And then obviously the court is did not issue its immunity decision. You know, I'm going to quote Paula Poundstone who said I can't wait to find out from the Supreme Court whether a president can kill someone. I mean, it's, it's just so absurd that this was not decided six months ago when Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to rule. So this is one where the decision is the delay. You know, yes, we will get a decision. But the decision is actually the fact that it is taken this long because Jack Smith is going to have one heck of a time trying to get this to trial before the election. Andrew, to go back to the bribery case, it was $13,000 after the fact of a $1 million contract to the company. So let's just change the numbers. Let's just say it's a much bigger contract to a much bigger company and it's $1,000,000. They'll just give you 1,000,000 bucks. A couple of weeks afterwards, the Supreme Court says no problem. Absolutely. And Katanji Brown Jackson goes through those facts and says you've got to be kidding. He gave out it was actually over $1,000,000 in two contracts. And then this public official shows up the door and says that's going to cost you $15,000. And the company serves nickels and Dimes it down to 13,000. And then when law enforcement comes and says, what is this? He lies repeatedly and comes up with a whole series of false stories to account for that money. Why? Because he knows it's illegal. And she's saying, you've got to be kidding. Even if you think that there's some areas in this law that could be vague, where there's some applications to some people where there may be a claim it's not him. And yet they have now basically said, you know what, you're all for sale. And Donald Trump wants to make all of that money tax free. Because Donald Trump's out there in Nevada saying he wants to make tips tax free. You don't have to include tips in your tax returns. So now he's saying if you're a public official, someone gives you $1,000,000 after a deal that's yours too. Keep it all. It's, it's just a tip. And the idea that this is something that you have Justice Alito and Justice Thomas voting on, just like they're going to be voting on the January 6th case. This, you know, it tells you just the sorry state that the courts are in, which is supposed to be one of the bulwarks, one of the key checks and balances that is supposed to be sort of a crown jewel of our democracy. And you can understand why the courts newest judge, Katanji Brown Jackson, is taking them to task in language that is strong and deservedly strong. Yeah, that line, only this court could love that. That's not formal Supreme Court Justice language. Yeah. No, it's it is clear that she has gotten there. And remember, she served on the District Court in DC. She served on the Court of Appeals in DC with judges who are conservative, judges who are moderate judges are liberal. And it's to me, it reads like she can't believe that she's seeing such disingenuous conduct by her colleagues.