Although I agree with this bill, the NYT calling it “strict new ethics rules” is a bit much. Reading the requirements in the bill itself, it struck me as legislating that SCOTUS justices do the bare ethical minimum required of most every other judge - in other words, it’s the type of bill that shows up when an organization demonstrates that it is incapable of self-policing.
What’s shocking is 100% opposition by Republicans to a bill requiring a Justice to recuse if a close family member receives a large gift from a litigant - literally, that’s in the bill.
How is this controversial? Senator Graham says why - requiring the court to act ethically will “destroy” the court. He’s saying, we don’t care if justices are ethical so long as they’re partisan.
Congress needs to step up here.
Democrats conceded the legislation could not pass the current Senate, where it would need 60 votes, and has no prospects in the Republican-controlled House. But they said the debate would focus attention on ethics issues on the Supreme Court and could build momentum for future action by Congress.
Republicans oppose it because that what they do. Chuck could say that it was sunny outside and Lindsay would make a show of bring an umbrella just out of spite.
In an environment like this, when very little can actually get done, sometimes activity like this is done to set the stage for the next thing. Democrats will campaign on this to sell voters on the idea that the Supreme Court is out of touch and unaccountable, and Republicans are standing in the way of changes. And if the Democrats win majorities in both houses in this election, I fully expect them to nuke the filibuster to pack the court.
My preferred method would be to slam in expansion to 13 on Day 1, effective in a years’ time. And then after signing it, Biden can go to Republicans and say “You have a choice: you can work with us to reform the court via amendment: institute ethics requirements, term limits, privledged status for appointments in the Senate, and efforts to make the Court less of a political football and more accountable. Or, you can leave things as they are, I will appoint 4 young judges to lifetime appointments and you can gamble on having both the Presidency and Senate control to appoint any more.”
Because you know that if the Presidency and Senate are controlled by different parties from now on, the Senate Leader will invoke the “McConnell Rule” to ignore the appointment entirely. In fact, this can be used as a justification to go to 13, because Democrats can argue that the Court will often have vacancies, because the Senate Majority leader has a permanent veto on filling the seat.
Democrats won’t even talk 13, they don’t have the gumption. “Oh, but the optics!” I don’t give a damn about optics anymore. One side is fighting as low down as they can go, while the other is like, “Let’s work together and not offend anyone.”
Look, I loved Obama, but this high-road crap has to end.
I think the republicans would accept Supreme Court reform because they would count on the Supreme Court justices to declare the reforms unconstitutional citing separation of powers. I just don’t see any option besides packing the court.
If an amendment is passed, that settles the matter permanently. You can’t call something unconstitutional if it’s in the plain text.
Conservative states would never sign on to an amendment on their own, that’s why you couple it with packing the court. Not passing the amendment means any new justices get the same lifetime appointments the current ones enjoy.
Republicans like getting their way by manufacturing deadlines like the dumb debt ceiling thing. Maybe Democrats should give them a taste of their own medicine.
An amendment would require ratification from 3/4 of the state legislatures, an amendment is not going to pass. The US Constitution explicitly gives the Congress the power to “organize the court” in Article 3, it is incontovertable that the Congress has the power to add Justices and impose ethical requirements on the judiciary. Congress has added Justices before and currently imposes ethical requirements on the lower courts.
I fully expect them to nuke the filibuster to pack the court.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but nuking the filibuster would end up working both ways, wouldn’t it? If there’s no filibuster, then if Republicans are somehow in control, they’d get by just as much with no resistance in passing laws than if Democrats did because there’d be no opposition, right?
If true, I am almost under the impression that no filibuster is actually a bad idea.
Of course it did. They want nothing to do with ethical thoughts
It’s too bad we can’t dig up any dirt on the liberal justices so that this could be a bi-partisan bill. Either the liberal justices are excellent at hiding their corruption or it’s just the conservative judges who are taking these bribes. My money is on the latter.
The GOP tried to “both sides” by pointing out the liberal justices took small, nomial fees and hotel stays when giving speeches to law students at colleges. Somehow it didnt line up to “a taking expensive vacation’s with a billionaire donor in your party on their private jets when they have cases before the court (alito)” or “taking expensives vacations with a gop billionaree that also bought your moms home and has let her live in it rent free for decades (thomas)” or " your wife making millions from “consulting” at GOP think tanks (thomas/roberts)."
So they shifted to “whatever. Its cool when our guys do it.”
Comparisons need not be fair. They just need to get it out there and it works. I don’t know how many times I’ve been discussing politics IRL when someone says, “Yeah, but the liberals do it to! Look at this!”
My favorite:
“Are you seriously conflating protests over racial discrimination with a takeover of our nation’s Capital in an attempt to overthrow the government?!”
“They’re the same.”
“Our side may have tried to violently overturn a fair election and install a fascist dictator in an insurrection that killed five people, but your side holds protests against racially-motivated police violence and some of those protests led to property damage, and that’s where I draw the line!”
The most serious thing I heard of was Sotomayor’s staff intimating to universities bringing the Justice in to speak hadn’t purchased enough copies of her book.
Can’t wait for the calls of “But her books!”
“It’s too bad” everyone is not corrupt?
Also, the Republicans spent decades buying this court, and nothing - not even what you suggest - would make them put any constraints on it.
Legislators should have to wear NASCAR-style suits with patches from their sponsors on them.
They all opposed this because it makes it harder for their donors to sway the court, and their donors obviously wouldn’t appreciate that.
Money isn’t speech because me buying crack isn’t protected by the constitution. If I can’t do illegal things with my money why can they?
Edit: forgive the over simplification
It is an oversimplification. The supreme court distinguishes between nonverbal acts that are political speech, and acts that are just acts. It’s not the money, it is the act of giving the money. Just like burning the flag is political speech. I’m not saying that Citizens United is correct, or that we are on the right path. Even if we had a honest acting Supreme Court ready to fix everything, they’d have to tread carefully to avoid fucking everything up.
Voters need to step up too!
