STAND YOUR GROUND AN AGGRESSIVE MOVE ON ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND THE ETHICS OF CLARENCE THOMAS.

STAY TUNED, IVOERY TOWER IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED AROUND THE TABLE TONIGHT BY BEN BAUGHMAN FROM GANNON UNIVERSITY, SARAH PRALLE FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, AND LUKE PERRY AND RICK FENNER, BOTH FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI LAST WEEK, A BLACK TEENAGER WENT TO THE WRONG HOUSE TO PICK UP HIS SIBLINGS AND WAS SHOT BY AN 84-YEAR OLD WHITE HOMEOWNER.

THE MAN SAID HE FELT THREATENED, POTENTIALLY SETTING UP A "STAND YOUR GROUND" DEFENSE.

THIRTY STATES HAVE STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS WHICH GIVE SOMEONE THE RIGHT TO USE DEADLY FORCE EVEN OUTSIDE THEIR HOME, IF THEY FEEL THEIR LIVES ARE THREATENED.

THE DEFENSE WAS FAMOUSLY USED A DECADE AGO AFTER TRAYVON MARTIN WAS SHOT AND KILLED.

DOES STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS HELP PREVENT CRIME, OR LEAD TO MORE OF IT?

>> THESE LAWS DON'T JUSTIFY WHETHER FORCE CAN BE USED OR NOT.

WHAT THEY DO IS RELIEVE SOMEBODY'S DUTY TO RETREAT.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CASTLE DOCTRINE, THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN AROUND AND MAY BE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE RATHER THAN STAND YOUR GROUND.

THE CASTLE DOCTRINE IS INSIDE YOUR DWELLING AND FOUR WALLS AND IN A LOT OF STATES, THE IMMEDIATE AREA AROUND YOUR HOUSE THAT YOU WOULD COMMONLY USE AND THEN STAND YOUR GROUND IS BASICALLY STUFF OUTSIDE OF YOUR HOUSE.

SO, YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE ARE FIVE ELEMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MET IF SELF-DEFENSE IS GOING TO WORK.

>> BUT IF YOU ARE SAYING IT RELIEVES YOUR DUTY TO RETREAT, DOESN'T THAT END UP IN THE SAME PLACE?

>> NO, NOT EXACTLY.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE REASON WHY WE HAVE THIS IS, IF YOU ARE IN YOUR HOUSE AND YOU ARE ASLEEP AND YOU WAKE UP TO SOMEBODY IN YOUR HOUSE AND YOU ARE SCARED THEY'RE GOING TO KILL YOU, YOUR DUTY TO RETREAT WOULD BE TO RUN OUT OF YOUR HOUSE IF THERE WASN'T THE CASTLE DOCTRINE.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE STAND YOUR GROUND, IF YOU ARE IN YOUR CAR AND SOMEBODY TRIES TO CAR JACK YOU, YOUR DUTY OF RETREAT WOULD BE TO GET OUT OF THE CAR AND RUN AWAY.

IF YOUR INFANT IS IN THE BACK SEAT, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

>> FIRST OF ALL, THE ACADEMIC RESEARCH, I THINK HAS SHOWN THAT THESE INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SHOOTINGS AND HOMICIDES AND DON'T DO ANYTHING TO REDUCE CRIME.

SECOND, THE ISSUE IS, IF YOU ARE CORNERED AND YOU CAN'T ESCAPE OR GO TO SAFETY, THEN, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS IN YOUR HOUSE, IT MAKES SENSE.

YOU CAN USE SELF-DEFENSE AS AN EXCUSE.

BUT THIS IS REALLY SAYING, IF YOU HAVE AN AVENUE FOR ESCAPE, EVEN IF THERE IS A WAY TO DEESCALATE, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT RESPONSIBILITY.

AND SO THAT LEADS TO THE ISSUE OF OH SOMEBODY KNOCKED ON MY DOOR AND I DON'T KNOW WHO IT IS.

I CAN SHOOT.

THAT'S FIRST, YOU KNOW, YOUR FIRST SET OF ACTIONS RATHER THAN THE LAST RESORT.

AND I THINK THAT IS-- SHOULDN'T BE SURPRISING THAT WE ARE SEEING MORE AND MORE OF THESE TYPES OF EVENTS.

>> I BELIEVE THAT'S A MISUNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE LAW IS WRITTEN.

THE LAW IS WRITTEN SO THAT YOU ARE NOT THE CRIMINAL WHEN SOMEBODY BREAKS INTO YOUR HOUSE AND YOU ARE PROTECTING YOURSELF.

YOU CAN'T SHOOT AND KILL SOMEBODY TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

YOU CAN SHOOT AND KILL SOMEBODY TO PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY.

THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT.

>> THAT'S NOT THE CASE THOUGH IN A LOT OF STATES.

THEY HAVE WHAT ARE EXTREME STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS WHICH ALLOW YOU TO GO AFTER PEOPLE WHO HAVE PERHAPS COME ON TO YOUR PROPERTY IF YOU FEEL SO CALLED THREATENED.

AND THE THING IS, IT'S VERY HARD FOR A PROSECUTOR TO PROVE THAT SOMEONE HABIT FELT, YOU KNOW, THREATENED, RIGHT?

AND THAT'S WHY GEORGE ZIMMERMAN WAS FOUND INNOCENT BECAUSE THE JURY FOUND SORT OF CREDIBLE THAT HE FELT HE WAS AFRAID, RIGHT?

AND SO HOW DO YOU COUNTER THAT?

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR PROSECUTORS?

>> GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, TO REMIND PEOPLE, THE PERSON WHO SHOT TRAYVON MARTIN 10 YEARS AGO.

>> WE TEND TO THINK ABOUT THIS IN AN INDIVIDUALISTIC WAY BECAUSE INDIVIDUALISM IS PART OF THE AMERICAN CULTURE BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT COLLECTIVE DECISION THAT STATES OR SOCIETY AT LARGE HAS TO MAKE.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BEN.

I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN VERY CONFINED CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT'S LIFE OR DEATH.

BUT OTHERWISE, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT GOVERNMENT, AND PARTICULARLY LAW ENFORCEMENT, DELEGATING TO CITIZENS, THE ABILITY TO USE DEADLY FORCE WHEN, BEN, I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE YOU AS A POLICE OFFICER, TRAINED IN HOW TO DEAL WITH THESE SITUATIONS, EXPERIENCED IN HOW TO DEAL WITH THESE SITUATIONS, TRYING TO DEESCALATE FIRST AND PREVENT LOSS OF LIFE BUT ULTIMATELY THAT'S WHAT GOVERNMENT TRIES TO DO, HAVE PEACEFUL RESOLUTION TO CONFLICTS AND THESE LAWS RUN COUNTER TO THAT.

>> WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE HAD, SINCE ENGLISH LAW, THIS DUTY TO RUN AWAY.

AND WHY THERE HAVE BEEN THINGS PUT IN PLACE SINCE THEN, BEING THE CASTLE DOCTRINE, AND AT THE END OF IT THOUGH, STILL, YOU HAVE TO HAVE INNOCENCE, AVOIDANCE, EMINENCE, PROPORTIONALITY AND REASONABLENESS.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ALL FIVE OF THOSE IN COURT, ONE OF THOSE, YOU KNOW, THE JURY FINDS IS MISSING, THEN YOU WILL BE FOUND GUILTY OF IMPROPER USE OF FORCE.

>> REASONABLENESS IN THE CASE IN KANSAS CITY COULD WELL THEN TURN ON THAT.

>> IT COULD.

>> SOMEBODY SHOWS UP AT THE DOOR.

>> UNLESS THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IT HAPPENED AT 10:00 AT NIGHT, ELDERLY MAN IN BED, WENT TO THE DOOR, DOOR BELL RANG.

HE WENT WITH A GUN.

HE COULD NOT SEE THE PERSON BECAUSE IT'S A WOODEN SOLID DOOR.

OPENS UP TO A FULL GLASS DOOR AND HIS PERCEPTION, WHAT HE IS SAYING-- WE DON'T KNOW.

THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE HE GOT CHARGED WITH A CLASS A FELONY WHICH IS WORSE THAN THEIR SECOND DEGREE MURDER IN MISSOURI.

HIS PERCEPTION, IT'S GOING TO BE BASED-- THE REASONABLENESS IS BASED ON WHAT HE KNEW AT THAT TIME AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

>> ALSO UNDER LYING ISSUE IN THIS CASE ANYWAY, IS RACE.

I MEAN THAT'S... >> THAT CLEARLY DOESN'T MEET YOUR CHECKLIST.

HE SHOT AN UNARMED KID OUTSIDE HIS HOUSE THAT RANG THE DOOR BELL, RIGHT?

>> IT'S NOT A CHECKLIST.

IF IT IS FOUND THAT BY THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TIME OF NIGHT MATTERS.

WHAT ALL HAPPENS LEADING UP TO THAT MATTERS.

IT'S NOT AS CLEAR CUT AS SOMEBODY TRICK OR TREATING, AND THERE ARE TWO CASES OF THAT IN LOUISIANA AND SOUTH CAROLINA WHERE BOTH OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE CHARGED.

THIS MAY BE A CASE WHERE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE STAND YOUR GROUND.

IT WOULD BE UNDER THE CASTLE DOCTRINE, IF THE COMPONENT OF THIS IS THERE AND ALL FIVE OF THESE ARE MET.

THE JURY IS GOING TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS REASONABLE FOR HIM, KNOWING WHAT HE KNEW AT THAT TIME, AND HIS TRAINING EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE.

NOT WHAT WE KNOW HOW.

>> SO EVERY DELIVERY PERSON THAT MAKES A MISTAKE LIVE.

>> AT 10:00.

>> YOU HAVE DELIVERY PEOPLE COMING AT 10:00 AT NIGHT?

>> DOOR DASH.

>> YOU CALL DOOR DASH.

>> BUT THEY MAKE A MISTAKE.

THE PERSON MAKES A MISTAKE AND YOU ARE SAYING SOMEONE HAS THE RIGHT BECAUSE... >> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUST OPEN THE DOOR AND SHOOT PEOPLE.

IF HE WAS IN FEAR OF HIS LIFE AND HE COULDN'T SEE THE PERSON ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DOOR.

>> WHY WAS HE IN FEAR OF HIS LIFE.

>> HE COULDN'T SEE WHO WAS THERE AT 10:00 AT NIGHT.

HE OPENS THE DOOR.

>> WHY DID HE OPEN THE DOOR?

>> HE IS 84 YEARS OLD.

THE WHOLE IDEA OF HIM TRYING TO RUN AWAY, IF HE REALLY THOUGHT HIS LIFE WAS IN DANGER AND SOMEBODY WAS TRYING TO GET IN HIS HOUSE, HE PERCEIVED THAT YOUNG MAN'S HAND WAS ON THAT DOOR HANDLE, THE EXTERNAL DOOR-- I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

IT'S HIGHLY UNFORTUNATE.

>> IT'S TOO EASY TO CLAIM SELF-DEFENSE.

THERE ARE NO WITNESSES OFTEN TIMES TO THESE.

YOU CAN EASILY CLAIM SELF-DEFENSE AND THE PROSECUTORS HAVE VERY LITTLE POWER, RIGHT, OVER THAT.

WHEREAS YOU COULD BE CHARGED WITH MANSLAUGHTER IN THE CASE OF TRAYVON MARTIN, IT SEEMED LIKE A PRETTY CLEAR CUT CASE OF MANSLAUGHTER WHERE HE WAS IN THE-- YOU KNOW, HE DIDN'T TAKE THE RIGHT STEPS AND IT LED TO VIOLENCE, RIGHT?

>> I REALLY APPRECIATE HOW YOU ARE SAYING THE FACTS OF THE CASE MATTER, THERE IS NUANCE HERE.

I GET THAT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY IN TERMS OF PUBLIC POLICY IF TONIGHT I HAD A SPRAWNED ANKLE, SOMEBODY IS AT MY DOOR.

I CAN'T SEE.

I HAVE A GUN, WORRIED ABOUT MY KID'S SAFETY.

I DON'T THINK I SHOULD BE JUSTIFIED TO SLOOT AT THE DOOR.

I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S THE TYPE OF SOCIETY WE SHOULD HAVE.

>> HE SHOULD HAVE PICKED UP THE PHONE AND CALLED THE POLICE.

THAT'S WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED SO THEY THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

THE THING I'M MOST, AS FAR AS A DEFENSE STANDPOINT THAT I THINK HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEY IS GOING TO HAVE TROUBLE WITH IS THE EMINENCE COMPONENTS OF THE FIVE PARTS OF SELF-DEFENSE WHICH WAS-- DID HE PERCEIVE HIS LIFE BEING IN IMMINENT DANGER?

AND THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE A TRICK.

NOW THE WHOLE THING WITH THE DOOR, YOU CAN'T SEE WHO IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DOOR.

>> BUT THIS IS WHERE RACE COMES IN AS WELL, WHICH YOU MENTIONED, WHICH IS THAT WHEN THE SHOOTER IS WHITE AND THE VICTIM IS BLACK, IT'S MUCH MORE OFTEN FOUND TO BE JUSTIFIABLE, RIGHT?

SO THIS FEAR THAT PEOPLE SAY THEY HAVE IS NOT RACIALLY NEUTRAL.

AND JURIES HEAR THAT AND ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO CONVICT SOMEONE IF THE SO CALLED PERPETRATOR WAS BLACK.

>> OKAY, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE THIS YEAR.

LAST WEEK THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED AGGRESSIVE NEW RULES ON AUTO EMISSIONS.

THEY EFFECTIVELY MEAN THAT JUST NINE YEARS FROM NOW, TWO-THIRDS OF ALL NEW PASSENGER VEHICLES IN THE U.S. WILL NEED TO BE ELECTRIC.

ONE-QUARTER OF TRUCKS WILL ALSO HAVE TO BE ELECTRIC TO MEET THE EMISSION STANDARDS.

PUSHBACK HAS ALREADY BEGUN, SAYING IT'S TOO MUCH, TOO FAST.

IS THE PROPOSED RULE TOO AGGRESSIVE?

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

AND I THINK BECAUSE HAVE YOU TO LOOK AT THE BIGGER CONTEXT, WHICH IS THAT THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR IS THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO CARBON EMISSIONS IN THE UNITED STATES AND IT'S UNLIKE SOME OTHER SOURCES, IT'S ACTUALLY GROWING.

SO IF WE WANT TO DECARBONIZE OUR ECONOMY, THEN WE REALLY NEED TO DO WHOLESALE ELECTRIFICATION OF PERSONAL VEHICLES AND THAT MEANS LOTS AND LOTS OF EF Vs AND PEOPLE HAVE-- EVs AND PEOPLE HAVE HEARD THAT SALES OF EVS ARE GOING UP BUT THEY COMPRISE A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE OVERALL U.S. FLEET.

PEOPLE ARE STILL BEING DRAWN TO BUYING BIGGER, HEAVIER VEHICLES, LIKE SUVs, TRUCKS, CROSSOVER VEHICLES THAT GET VERY POOR FUEL EFFICIENCY, SORT OF FUN FACT IS THAT CURRENT FUEL EFFICIENCY OF THE U.S. FLEET IS ABOUT 25.5 MILES PER GALLON, WHICH HAS REMAINED STABLE FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

THE FORD MODEL-T COULD GET UP TO 21 MILES PER HOUR.

SO WE HAVEN'T MADE A WHOLE LOT OF PROGRESS ON FUEL EFFICIENCY.

AND WE NEED TO TRANSITION AND WE NEED TO TRANSITION REALLY QUICKLY.

>> I THINK IT IS VERY AGGRESSIVE.

BUT YOU HAVE TO ALSO LOOK AT WHAT THE CAR MAKERS HAVE SAID THEMSELVES.

G.M.

HAS PROPOSED BEING 100% ELECTRIC BY 2035.

AND FORD, 50% ELECTRIC BY 2030.

AND THOSE ARE RIGHT IN LINE WITH BIDEN'S GOALS.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE SOME PROBLEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.

THE RAW MATERIALS FOR THE BATTERIES, LITHIUM AND COBALT.

SOME OF THE COMPANIES ARE HAVING PROBLEMS GETTING ENOUGH OF THESE TO MEET THE CURRENT DEMAND.

PLUS THERE IS THE ISSUE OF GOING FROM APPROXIMATELY 130,000 CHARGING STAWTIONS TO NEEDING WELL OVER TWO MILLION IN ORDER TO MEET DEMAND.

SO I THINK, PLUS YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THE POLITICAL OPPOSITION OF THE GAS AND OIL STATES.

SO I THINK HAVING A SET OF BENCHMARKS PERHAPS AS WE GO FORWARD, WOULD BE A BETTER WAY OF DOING THIS.

BUT I DON'T THINK ON THE SURFACE OF THIS, THIS CAN BE LAUGHED OFF AS BEING AN UNREALISTIC GOAL.

>> IF WE MAKE THIS QUICK TRANSITION, WHICH ACKNOWLEDGES WE SHOULD HAVE PERHAPS STARTED THIS 30 YEARS AGO, WHERE ARE WE GOING TO GET THE ELECTRICITY FROM?

WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT?

>> WE ARE GOING TO BURN COAL BECAUSE THAT'S RENEWABLE FUEL, RIGHT?

WE ARE GOING TO BURN A LOT MORE COAL.

>> RENEWABLE ON A MILLION YEAR... >> WE HAVE TO GET A LOT MORE CHIPS AND WE GET MOST OF THOSE FROM TAIWAN.

SO I DON'T KNOW, IF WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH CHINA, AND TAIWAN, THAT MAY CAUSE A PROBLEM WITH THIS LITTLE MILESTONE.

>> I THINK THE COAL PIECE IS AN IMPORTANT ONE TO CONSIDER.

ROUGHLY HALF OF THE ENERGY OF ELECTRICITY IS PRODUCED FROM COAL BURNING POWER PLANTS.

THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE REDUCED TO BE EFFECTIVE.

YOU MENTIONED 30 YEARS AGO.

WE HAD 30 VEHICLES IN THE 1990S.

THE TECHNOLOGY IS NOT NEW.

THIS IS A ROLE FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR TO TELL MANUFACTURERS, WE'LL HELP YOU WITH THE MARKET-- THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT.

THEY WANT TO MAKE THEIR MONEY AND SELL THEIR VEHICLES.

DOING THIS WE ARE DECREASING AIR POLLUTION AND GIVING THE GREEN LIGHT TO MANUFACTURERS, AS RICK SAID TO TO GO HEAVY INTO THIS.

IT'S A WIN-WIN.

>> THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THIS.

IF IT COSTS TOO MUCH, YOU WILL FIND OUT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HANG ON TO THEIR EXISTING VEHICLES LONGER AND WE HAVE HAD THE SAME DEBATE EVERY TIME WE HAVE INCREASED, YOU KNOW, THE FEDERAL FUEL EFFICIENCY STANDARDS.

AND SO IT COULD ALSO BOOMER BOOMERANG IF PEOPLE HANG ON TO THEIR OLD GAS GUZZLERS, THE ENVIRONMENT IS GOING TO LOSE OUT.

>> LET'S MOVE TO OUR THIRD STORY.

WE HAVE TO MOVE TOO QUICKLY.

ETHICAL QUESTIONS CONTINUE TO SWIRL AROUND SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS.

FIRST, PROPUBLICA DOCUMENTED HIS FREQUENT USE OF A BILLIONAIRE'S JET AND TRIPS TO HIS LUXURY VACATION HOMES.

THEN IT FOUND THE BILLIONAIRE, HARLAN CROW, ALSO BOUGHT AND RENOVATED THOMAS'S CHILDHOOD HOME WHERE HIS MOTHER STILL LIVES.

THOMAS DID NOT DISCLOSE EITHER, AS REQUIRED BY LAW.

THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL HOLD A HEARING AND A COMPLAINT HAS BEEN SENT TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE.

SOME PEOPLE ARE CALLING FOR A RESIGNATION.

RICK, IS IT TOO SOON FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

>> A FEW WEEKS AGO IF YOU RECALL, I GAVE CLARENCE THOMAS AN F WHEN THESE REVELATIONS FIRST STARTED COMING OUT AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED MY MIND FROM WHAT WE'VE HEARD.

I WAS 10 OR 12 WHEN I FIRST HEARD THE PHRASE IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE.

I QUESTION WHETHER CLARENCE THOMAS HAS HEARD IT OR IF HE THINKS IT DOESN'T PERTAIN TO HIM.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT HE WILL RESIGN.

I THINK THE ISSUE IS GOING TO BE THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, IS GOING TO BE CHAIRED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

REALLY WHAT I WANT TO HEAR IS WHAT HE IS GOING TO SAY.

I THINK IT'S TIME FOR THE OTHER SUPREME COURT JUSTICES TO DROP THIS UNWRITTEN RULE OF SILENCE.

AND THEY NEED TO STEP FORWARD AND SAY WHAT THEY THINK OF HIS BEHAVIORS.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS HAS COMPLAINED THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE THE COURT IS TOO POLITICAL AND THEY DON'T HAVE CONFIDENCE IN IT.

WELL, I THINK THEY'RE JUSTIFIED IN FEELING THAT IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD.

>> IS THIS JUST MORE PARTISAN MUD SLINGING THOUGH, BEN?

>> NO, IT'S THE HIGHEST COURT.

THEY SHOULD HAVE THE HIGHEST STANDARDS.

THEY NEED TO HAVE STUFF WRITTEN DOWN THAT NEED TO HAPPEN RATHER THAN THEY HAVE THESE DISCLOSURES, FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES TO TRY TO SHOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE IMPARTIAL BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE NEEDS TO BE ACCOUNTABILITY.

>> WHEN YOU SAY STUFF WRITTEN DOWN.

A CODE OF CONDUCT?

>> IT NEEDS TO BE VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD THAT WHEN YOU NEGLECT TO PUT DOWN MULTIPLE TRIPS THAT ARE BEING FUNDED BY BILLIONAIRES, THIS THE REINFORCE WHAT YOU MIGHT BE RULING ON, THAT'S A PROBLEM.

>> SARAH?

>> WELL, I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT RICK SAID ABOUT THE LARGER CREDIBILITY OF THE COURT.

REALLY THE RECENT SURVEY SHOWS IT'S TANKED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

ONLY 25% OF AMERICANS HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE COURT.

ALMOST HALF OF THE PEOPLE IN A SURVEY SAID THAT THE COURT WAS, THAT THEY BELIEVED POLITICS IS WHAT IS DRIVING THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT.

AND NOT ANY KIND OF, THAT IS SORT OF BASICALLY MOTIVATING THEM.

AND SO THOMAS' SCANDAL FEEDS INTO THAT IDEA THAT IT'S REALLY POLITICS DRIVING A LOT OF THE COURT'S DECISIONS, MANY OF WHICH ARE VERY OUT OF STEP WITH PUBLIC OPINION, BY THE WAY.

AND YOU KNOW, WE DON'T EXPECT THE COURTS TO SKEW TO PUBLIC OPINION, BUT WHEN THEY'RE THIS FAR OUT OF STEP WITH WHERE THE PUBLIC IS AT AND WHEN IT IS SEEN AS DRIVEN BY AN IDEOLOGY, I THINK THERE IS REAL PROBLEMS FOR THE LEGITIMACY OF THE COURT AND FOR OUR DEMOCRACY OVERALL.

>> THE COURT IS POLITICIZED AND BECOMING MORE LIKE OTHER INSTITUTIONS LIKE CONGRESS WHICH HAVE LOWER APPROVAL RATINGS.

I DON'T THINK THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT INFLUENCED CLARENCE THOMAS' JURISPRUDENCE.

HE SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE LAW.

THE FEDERAL JUDGES BELOW THE SUPREME COURT HAVE A CODE OF CONDUCT THAT THEY HAVE TO ADHERE TO.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS TALKED ABOUT ADOPTING ONE FOR YEARS.

NOW IS THE TIME.

JUSTICE ROBERTS CAN HOPEFULLY BRING THE COURT ALONG.

THAT'S WAY OVERDUE.

>> THIS IS ALSO JUST ONE OF MANY ETHICAL LAPSES AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FACING THOMAS.

IF THIS WAS THE ONLY THING, I WOULDN'T BE WANTING HIM TO RESIGN.

BUT IF YOU PUT THIS ALL TOGETHER-- THIS IS ALMOST ANALOGOUS TO THE TRUMP SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN BYPASS OR OVERLOOK ONE OR TWO THUNGSZ, BUT THINGS, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL BODY OF HOW HE HAS ACTED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, I DON'T THINK HE IS DESERVING TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

>> HOW DO YOU REBUILD TRUST IN THE SUPREME COURT THEN?

THAT'S A BIG QUESTION.

>> I THIS I WE EXPAND IT FOR ONE THING SO THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE SUCH A PARTISAN TILT RIGHT NOW.

AND ALSO THE OTHER, SOME OTHER IDEAS ARE TO HAVE TERM LIMITS FOR THE JUSTICES SO THAT THEY'RE AUTOMATICALLY OFF THE COURT AND THAT WOULD SORT OF RANDOMIZE WHICH PRESIDENTS AND UNDER WHAT PARTY IS NOMINATING THEM.

>> I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUE THAT LED TO THIS WAS THE CHANGE IN THE FILIBUSTER.

YOU USED TO NEAT TO HAVE MORE TO CONFIRM A JUSTICE.

>> THE LAST SEVERAL JUSTICES HAVE BEEN NOMINATED, IT HAS BEEN AN ALL OUT BATTLE.

I WANT TO GET BACK TO READING SOME VIEWER COMMENTS.

WE USED TO DO THIS AND WE GOT AWAY FROM IT AND WE HAVE HAD SOME GOOD ONES COME IN RECENTLY SO I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD WEEK TO START.

JIM DOMLY WROTE TO US ABOUT THE F ABOUT THE TEACH DID NOT FOLLOW SCHOOL GUIDELINES BY SHOWING MICHAEL ANGELO'S DAVID.

HE SUGGESTED A DIFFERENT GRADE BE GIVEN.

HE WROTE MAYBE THE SCHOOL DESERVES AN A FOR OFFERING SIXTH GRADERS A COURSE IN RENAISSANCE ART IN THE FIRST PLACE.

AND AFTER OUR DISCUSSION A COUPLE WEEKS AGO ABOUT THE NO LABELS GROUP AND ELECTION SPOILERS AND THIRD PARTIES, THREE VIEWERS WROTE IN SUGGESTING A DISCUSSION ABOUT RANKED CHOICE VOTING.

AND THE GOOD NEWS IS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT RAKED CHOICE ON "IVORY TOWER" A NUMBER OF TIMES.

AND THE BETTER NEWS IS THAT WITH AN ELECTION ON THE HORIZON, WE WILL SURELY TAKE IT UP AGAIN.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTERS.

KEEP THEM COMING.

LET'S GO TO OUR AS & Fs.

BEN FIRST.

>> MY F GOES TO THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.

THEY SENT OUT YESTERDAY MORNING AT 4:45 A.M., THE TEST THAT THIS IS A TEST, EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM.

NO ACTION IS REQUIRED AND WOKE UP THOUSANDS OF FLORIDIANS.

>> AND SARAH, YOUR F. >> MY F THIS WEEK GOES TO STATE AND FEDERAL POLICY MAKERS FOR FAILING TO TACKLE A VERY IMPORTANT PROBLEM, THE PROBLEM OF UNPAID CARE GIVING IN THE UNITED STATES.

ABOUT 42 MILLION AMERICANS PROVIDE UNPAID CARE AND THAT'S UP ABOUT 10 TIMES SINCE 1989.

AND THIS PUTS A HEAVY COAL ON CAREGIVERS WHO GET ALMOST NO HELP FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND OFTEN SUFFER FINANCIALLY, PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY AND THEY'RE STRUGGLING AND AWE FEED TO DO SOMETHING TO HELP THEM OUT.

>> LUKE, YOUR F. >> TO THE GOVERNOR AND STATE LEGISLATURE FOR THE LONG DELAY IN PASSING A BUDGET.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NEED TO APPROVE THEIR BUDGETS AND THAT'S REALLY HARD TO DO WITHOUT KNOWING HOW MUCH STATE AID THEY'RE GOING TO GET.

>> AND RICK.

>> MY F TO THE MONTANA FREEDOM CAUCUS FOR DEMANDING THE CENSURE OF REPRESENTATIVE ZOE SEVER FOR HER ATTEMPT TO SHAME THEM PASSING A BILL THAT WOULD BAN TRANSITION CARE FOR TRANSGENDER MINORS AND REFERRING TO HER AS A HIM.

>> AND NOW IT'S TIME FOR OUR As.

BEN?

>> MY A GOES TO MURPHY THE EAGLE AND THE WORLD BIRD SANCTUARY.

THIS EAGLE WAS SITTING ON A ROCK THAT HE HAD COLLECTED, BELIEVING IT WAS AN EGG.

THERE WAS AN ORPHAN EAGLET BROUGHT TO MURPHY AND MURPHY TOOK IT UNDER HIS WING AND RAISING THE BABY AS HIS OWN.

>> MURPHY THE EAGLE.

AND SARAH, YOUR A.

>> SO MY A GOES TO EARTH DAY WHICH IS GOING TO BE CELEBRATED AROUND THE COUNTRY ON SATURDAY.

THE ORIGINAL EARTH DAY WAS IN 1970 AND IT SHINED A NATIONWIDE SPOTLIGHT ON POLLUTION AND THE DEGRADATION OF OUR ENVIRONMENT.

20 MILLION PEOPLE PARTICIPATED IN THE ORIGINAL EARTH DAY AND THAT IS STILL THE LARGEST SINGLE DAY PROTEST IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

HERE IN SYRACUSE, S.U.

STUDENTS BLOCKADED THE CAMPUS TO PROTEST INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES SOMETHING WE TALKED ABOUT TODAY.

AND EARTH DAY CELEBRATIONS TODAY ARE MUCH MORE TAME AFFAIRS BUT THEY'RE STILL A TESTAMENT TO THE POWER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT.

>> AND LUKE, YOUR A.

>> MY A GOES TO THE UTICA CITY FOOTBALL CLUB OUR LOCAL INDOOR PROFESSIONAL SOCCER TEAM.

THEY'RE EXCITING PLAYOFF RUN UNFORTUNATELY CAME TO AN END RECENTLY BUT IT WAS A THRILLING SEASON, WHICH IS GOOD SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT.

>> AND RICK.

>> YEAH, THAT WAS GREAT.

LOVE UCFC.

MY A GOES TO ROBERT ZIDMAN WHO WAS AWARDED $5 MILLION TO PROVE MIKE WRONG CONTEST.

GOOD FRIEND OF DONALD TRUMP.

HE CLAIMED HE HAD DATA THAT SHOWED CHINA INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION AND CHALLENGED PEOPLE TO PROVE THE DATA WAS WRONG.

HE HAD IN FACT DONE THAT AND NOW HE HAS TO PAY UP.

>> $5 MILLION BIG ONES.

>> YOU MENTIONED THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE AND THE S.U.

PROTEST AND EARTH DAY CELEBRATION AND IT REMINDS ME THAT I JUST READ AN ARTICLE A COUPLE DAYS AGO ABOUT THE AUTO SHOW IN CLB, ALL THE NEW CARS COMING OUT AND THE BIG THING IS ELECTRIC CARS AS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AND THERE WAS A QUOTE FROM THE CAR DESIGNER SAYING THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE IS DEAD.

IT'S GONE.

IT THREW ME BACK TO A MAN I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD PRESIDENT, THE FIRST PRESIDENT BUSH, BUT HE MOCKED AL GORE 30 YEARS AGO AND SAID THIS GUY WANTS TO DO AWAY WITH THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE AND THAT TAKES US BACK TO 30 YEARS AGO ABOUT THE LACK OF MOVEMENT ON A TRANSITION THAT WE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WAS COMING.

WITH THAT...

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VIEW THE SHOW AGAIN YOU CAN VIEW IT ONLINE AT WCNY DOT ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FOR ALL OF US AT IVORY TOWER, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.