Jan Crawford Slams 'Corrupt Court' Claims: A Threat to Democracy?

Paul Riverbank, 12/30/2025Jan Crawford argues court corruption claims are dangerous, risking public trust in American democracy.

Take this past Sunday’s “Face the Nation.” Jan Crawford, not one to pull punches, didn’t just sidestep the latest outcry—she doused it with cold water, calling the corruption claims “patently false” and, not stopping there, “dangerous.” Her point was sharp: the uproar following the Dobbs decision—when Roe v. Wade was tossed—aired genuine grievances about legal philosophy, but then the conversation veered, as it often does, into attacks on the character of the court and its members.

The drama didn’t stay confined to press panels. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a seasoned Democrat, doubled down over on CNN, putting a finer point on his party’s frustrations. Jeffries, pressed by Wolf Blitzer to clarify, accused some justices of blatant “outrageous behavior”—citing, as many have, unreported gifts or trips involving Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. For Jeffries, the lack of a formal code of conduct was damning. The narrative, as he spelled it out, was less about rulings and more about what, in his view, was a court adrift from public accountability.

Of course, public suspicion didn’t spring from thin air; stories about gifts and the cozy relationships between justices and wealthy benefactors have sometimes read like a subplot from a political thriller—except, as Crawford was quick to stress, actual evidence of corruption has yet to make a real appearance. If you squint, what emerges is less a criminal scandal and more a cultural clash rooted in old complaints about the slow, sometimes opaque grind of the American system.

Here’s where Crawford planted her flag. Critique the opinions, she said—disagree with the court’s interpretations, rail against the majority’s alignment. But tossing around accusations with scant proof, demanding sweeping structural overhauls, and painting the court itself as rotten to the core? That’s a different animal. “It’s profoundly wrong,” she insisted, “to call it corruption where there, in fact, is none.”

It’s not merely about defending nine robed individuals. For Crawford and many who watch the court closely, the deeper risk is public trust fraying at the seams. If the notion that the justices no longer call balls and strikes out of fairness—that’s the judiciary’s central metaphor, after all—becomes gospel, people may stop believing in the rule of law altogether. That’s a crisis, one with echoes in history.

Not so long ago, two revolutions on opposite sides of the Atlantic led to wildly different consequences. The American approach sought to build on sturdy, if imperfect, institutions. In France, unchecked rage and distrust left little standing—guillotines and instability replaced consensus and continuity. You don’t need a powdered wig or a law degree to see where each experiment led.

Now, that doesn’t mean the high court wears a halo. One only has to watch a handful of confirmation hearings to see feisty, sometimes deeply uncomfortable, debates about the justices’ ethics, their backgrounds, their perspectives. Calls for term limits, for a binding ethics code, even for dramatic reforms like court-packing, aren’t off the table—and in fact, deserve a public airing. But there’s a difference between accountability and a relentless campaign to delegitimize an entire institution.

Crawford’s warning isn’t for liberals alone, nor is it a blanket defense of judicial conservatism. The point, as she put it—blunt as ever—is that you can lament the court’s rightward tilt all you want, but eroding confidence in its very function is a dangerous game. As the country barrels toward its 250th anniversary, the wisdom remains as relevant as ever: the Supreme Court wasn’t set up to chase headlines or curry favor with vocal factions. Its real strength—and, sometimes, its greatest vulnerability—comes from the public’s stubborn belief that, even at its messiest moments, it tries to uphold the law.

Wandering too far from that faith, history shows, doesn’t just risk losing the court. It risks losing the machinery that keeps democracy moving. And that, as Crawford and others have warned, should give everyone pause—no matter what side of the aisle you're watching from.

There’s a particular charge echoing through Washington’s corridors these days—and it isn’t just making the rounds on talk shows. Some people, especially critics on the political left, aren’t merely unhappy with the Supreme Court’s direction. They’re calling its very integrity into question, tagging it with the loaded word “corrupt.”Take this past Sunday’s “Face the Nation.” Jan Crawford, not one to pull punches, didn’t just sidestep the latest outcry—she doused it with cold water, calling the corruption claims “patently false” and, not stopping there, “dangerous.” Her point was sharp: the uproar following the Dobbs decision—when Roe v. Wade was tossed—aired genuine grievances about legal philosophy, but then the conversation veered, as it often does, into attacks on the character of the court and its members.The drama didn’t stay confined to press panels. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a seasoned Democrat, doubled down over on CNN, putting a finer point on his party’s frustrations. Jeffries, pressed by Wolf Blitzer to clarify, accused some justices of blatant “outrageous behavior”—citing, as many have, unreported gifts or trips involving Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. For Jeffries, the lack of a formal code of conduct was damning. The narrative, as he spelled it out, was less about rulings and more about what, in his view, was a court adrift from public accountability.Of course, public suspicion didn’t spring from thin air; stories about gifts and the cozy relationships between justices and wealthy benefactors have sometimes read like a subplot from a political thriller—except, as Crawford was quick to stress, actual evidence of corruption has yet to make a real appearance. If you squint, what emerges is less a criminal scandal and more a cultural clash rooted in old complaints about the slow, sometimes opaque grind of the American system.Here’s where Crawford planted her flag. Critique the opinions, she said—disagree with the court’s interpretations, rail against the majority’s alignment. But tossing around accusations with scant proof, demanding sweeping structural overhauls, and painting the court itself as rotten to the core? That’s a different animal. “It’s profoundly wrong,” she insisted, “to call it corruption where there, in fact, is none.”It’s not merely about defending nine robed individuals. For Crawford and many who watch the court closely, the deeper risk is public trust fraying at the seams. If the notion that the justices no longer call balls and strikes out of fairness—that’s the judiciary’s central metaphor, after all—becomes gospel, people may stop believing in the rule of law altogether. That’s a crisis, one with echoes in history.Not so long ago, two revolutions on opposite sides of the Atlantic led to wildly different consequences. The American approach sought to build on sturdy, if imperfect, institutions. In France, unchecked rage and distrust left little standing—guillotines and instability replaced consensus and continuity. You don’t need a powdered wig or a law degree to see where each experiment led.Now, that doesn’t mean the high court wears a halo. One only has to watch a handful of confirmation hearings to see feisty, sometimes deeply uncomfortable, debates about the justices’ ethics, their backgrounds, their perspectives. Calls for term limits, for a binding ethics code, even for dramatic reforms like court-packing, aren’t off the table—and in fact, deserve a public airing. But there’s a difference between accountability and a relentless campaign to delegitimize an entire institution.Crawford’s warning isn’t for liberals alone, nor is it a blanket defense of judicial conservatism. The point, as she put it—blunt as ever—is that you can lament the court’s rightward tilt all you want, but eroding confidence in its very function is a dangerous game. As the country barrels toward its 250th anniversary, the wisdom remains as relevant as ever: the Supreme Court wasn’t set up to chase headlines or curry favor with vocal factions. Its real strength—and, sometimes, its greatest vulnerability—comes from the public’s stubborn belief that, even at its messiest moments, it tries to uphold the law.Wandering too far from that faith, history shows, doesn’t just risk losing the court. It risks losing the machinery that keeps democracy moving. And that, as Crawford and others have warned, should give everyone pause—no matter what side of the aisle you're watching from.