Co-host of 'Legal AF podcast' claims SCOTUS has ‘self-serving’ stake in avoiding Democratic probes
WASHINGTON, DC: Executive director of True North Research and co-host of the ‘Legal AF podcast’, Lisa Graves, claimed the Supreme Court may have a “self-serving” reason to favor outcomes that help Republicans retain control of Congress.
She tied that claim to a pending election-related case and argued the stakes are higher because Democrats could investigate the court if they regain power.
Lisa Graves links court rulings to probe concerns
Speaking on a recent episode, Graves argued that the Supreme Court has already shown a willingness to intervene in election-related matters.
She pointed to the court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which allowed Louisiana to redraw its congressional map, as evidence that the court departed from a long-standing practice of avoiding interference in elections during election years.
According to Graves, that decision raises questions ahead of a forthcoming case from Mississippi that could determine when states are allowed to count mail-in ballots.
“All bets are off because we know the Roberts court has been actively, aggressively intervening in our elections while elections are underway to put their thumb or their fist on the scale of justice on the side of Republicans,” Graves said.
She also accused Chief Justice John Roberts of having a “multi-decade antipathy for the Voting Rights Act”.
Graves cites Democratic investigation threat
Graves went further by arguing that the court could have institutional reasons to prefer Republicans holding Congress after the midterms.
“And also, it cannot go unmentioned by me that if Congress were to become controlled by Democrats, there would probably be a robust investigation of this Roberts court,” she said.
“So, they have a self-serving interest as they are trying to move the law to aid what the RNC wants or what Republicans want,” she said.
Graves later said the Louisiana decision highlighted what she described as the court’s “self-serving” interest because a Republican-controlled Congress would be less likely to investigate the justices than a Democratic-controlled one.
Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito's scrutiny resurfaces
As part of her argument, Graves pointed to issues she believes Democrats could investigate if they gained congressional control.
She said Justice Clarence Thomas has not answered questions regarding financial disclosures and a recreational vehicle purchased through a loan from a wealthy associate that was later forgiven.
Graves also said Justice Samuel Alito has not answered questions about trips funded by wealthy donors.
“There are a lot of investigations that need to take place,” Graves said.
Her comments come as attention turns toward the Supreme Court’s upcoming election-related cases, including the Mississippi dispute over mail-in ballots.
Graves argued those decisions now face additional scrutiny because of what she described as the court’s potential interest in avoiding future Democratic-led investigations.
