AOC understands the stakes: The "high crimes" of Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito must be prosecuted

Corruption is one of those issues that tends to rile up political professionals and journalists, but not so much ordinary voters. Sure, everyday people don't like it when politicians and other public officials have their hands in the cookie jar, but it can be hard to see how bribe-taking and favor-trading have a meaningful impact on the much-ballyhooed "kitchen table" issues. During focus groups, such as those shared on Sarah Longwell's often-infuriating-but-always-illuminating podcast, voters often assume "everyone" in politics is corrupt. It doesn't shape partisan preferences as much as one would hope. (Though there is evidence that corruption can suppress voter turnout over time.)

In the past couple of years, there have been two dominant stories driving down the public's respect for the Supreme Court: bad rulings and outright corruption. The latter has been a big deal in the press, because it provides all the aspects that make for exciting journalism: uncovering secrets, cataloging damning facts and, of course, exposing colorful details that make a story "pop." Even if the dollar amount of gifts granted to Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are hard to remember, no one can forget those photos of Alito gloating over the fish he caught on his free luxury Alaska vacation or the original painting that was commissioned of Thomas hanging out with Harlan Crow, his billionaire benefactor.

However, polling data suggests the soaring disapproval ratings of the Supreme Court owe more to their bad decisions, though stories about corruption are not helping. The public's trust in the court started to tank especially hard after Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the case that overturned five decades of abortion rights. That was a full year before the public learned that Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society had been introducing the justices to far-right billionaires, who would lavish them with gifts. But the loss of abortion rights, which directly affects the lives of countless Americans, has always been a parallel story to the Supreme Court's corruption, without much effort by politicians or journalists to link the two stories together.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

In fact, the court's corruption is deeply intertwined with the bad decisions that are inflicting harm on millions of people. This is why I was pleased to see Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. file articles of impeachment against Thomas and Alito this week, accusing them of "high crimes and misdemeanors" for hiding the millions of dollars of gifts received from billionaires. She's also charged them for not recusing from election-related cases, despite substantial evidence that they and their wives have insurrectionist sympathies. Despite her strong social media presence and lefty credentials, Ocasio-Cortez has earned a reputation as a serious leader and not one prone to cheap political stunts. She wouldn't be doing this if she weren't serious, even though she fully admits it will go nowhere in a GOP-dominated House.

It's also a big deal, because Ocasio-Cortez is known for being a nuts-and-bolts politician. While she is conversant in more abstract topics, she's celebrated for her skill at explaining, in an accessible way, how economic and health care policy impacts people's lives. She has been one of the most effective elected officials speaking out against Dobbs, for instance. This is precisely why she's the perfect person to take the lead in keeping the corruption story alive. She's well-positioned to explain how elite corruption is a big reason why the Supreme Court keeps issuing dangerous opinions that hurt ordinary people.

In her speech introducing the articles, Ocasio-Cortez drew a direct line between the corruption of Thomas and Alito and "the suffering of the American people." She argued that we cannot "pretend that this corruption is wholly unrelated to the pregnant Americans now suffering and bleeding out in emergency rooms" because of the Dobbs decision penned by Alito. After all, Ocasio-Cortez noted, banning abortion was a "key political priority of these undisclosed benefactors and shadow organizations surrounding Alito and Thomas's misconduct."

It's likely easier for journalists and voters to see the direct link between the bribery-shaped behavior of Thomas and Alito and decisions that benefit businesses at the public expense. This term had many such decisions, most notably Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the six conservative justices hamstrung the ability of bureaucracies like the Environmental Protection Agency to pass regulations. With so-called "social" issues like abortion rights, however, mainstream journalists still tend to act as if the justices aren't being influenced by money and power to rule against human rights. For instance, Michel Martin of NPR recently asked Ocasio-Cortez if it's possible billionaires are "giving them these gifts because they know [how] they're going to vote on" issues like abortion rights, not as a way to influence their vote. As if a thank-you gift is somehow functionally different from a bribe.

Ocasio-Cortez has a talent, however, for framing these issues in terms of class warfare that cuts through this kind of noise. In 2022, she had a memorable response to complaints that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had a fancy dinner at a steakhouse interrupted by protesters. She mocked him on Twitter with, "let him eat cake."

She has an intuitive grasp on the theme that ties all these various Supreme Court stories together: the right's desire to replace equality under the law with an authoritarian two-tiered system. People like them get all the privileges and goodies, while the rest of us are left choking on air pollution and dying of lack of medical care. Members of the Republican elite, especially Donald Trump, are allowed to commit whatever crime they wish and get "immunity," while the rest of us are criminalized for basic body functions like pregnancy or needing to sleep. The rest of us risk death from mass shootings because selling bump stocks makes Thomas's rich buddies a little richer.

Stated plainly, these links seem obvious, but it's generally true that the material impacts of court corruption often fall by the wayside in these discussions. Earlier this month, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore. requested that the Justice Department open a criminal investigation into Thomas, out of concerns he's committed tax fraud by taking millions in undisclosed gifts. A serious crime, but one that tends to read as "victimless" to most Americans. Both Whitehouse and Wyden are outspoken critics of the Dobbs decision, but they rarely link their concerns about corruption directly to abortion bans.

The connection, however, is right there, if anyone wishes to look into it. Leo, the former Federalist Society head who has spent so much time setting up benefactor relationships between billionaires and the justices, also happens to be motivated by a frankly unhinged obsession with banning abortion. Reporting after the Dobbs decision shows that some of the conservative justices had been skittish about ending Roe v. Wade, but caved to pressure from Alito and Thomas to go as radical as possible. That level of conviction to strip basic rights from millions of women is a lot easier to maintain if your rich friends are telling you to stick it out, in between rounds of free caviar and another glass of outrageously expensive wine. Perhaps more than anyone else in Congress, Ocasio-Cortez gets that connection.