Supreme Court Faces Stricter Ethics Standards in Senate Judiciary Committee Legislation
By Mary Clare Jalonick | Associated Press
A response to recent revelations about donor-funded trips by justices, the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved legislation that would impose stronger ethics standards on the Supreme Court. However, the bill is unlikely to pass the full Senate due to united opposition from Republicans who argue that it could “destroy” the court.
The approved legislation focuses on setting ethics rules for the court, establishing a process for enforcement, and introducing new standards for transparency in recusals, gifts, and potential conflicts of interest. Democrats initially proposed the bill after reports emerged earlier this year of Justice Clarence Thomas participating in luxurious vacations and a real estate deal with a prominent GOP donor. Chief Justice John Roberts’ refusal to testify before the committee about the court’s ethics further spurred Democrats to take action.
Subsequent news reports revealed that Justice Samuel Alito had also taken a luxury vacation with a GOP donor, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor had used college visits to boost sales of her books. These revelations have led Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin to emphasize the necessity of the legislation in restoring confidence in the court. Durbin highlighted that similar activities by senators would be considered ethics violations, but the justices appear to be exempt from such consequences.
Despite its importance, the ethics legislation is unlikely to pass in the Senate, as it would require the support of at least nine GOP votes, which is highly improbable. Additionally, holding the majority, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is expected to oppose the bill as well. Nonetheless, Democrats argue that the recent wave of revelations underscores the need for enforceable standards within the court.
The legislation is the latest development in the growing tension and partisanship surrounding the judiciary within the committee. During his presidency, Donald Trump appointed three conservative justices to the Supreme Court, all of whom were confirmed despite strong opposition from Democrats when Republicans held the Senate majority. Consequently, the court has shifted significantly to the right, leading Republicans to assert that the ethics legislation is driven by Democratic disagreement with the court’s decisions rather than genuine concerns about ethics.
Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham, prominent Republicans on the Judiciary panel, accuse Democrats of attempting to “harass,” “intimidate,” and ultimately “destroy” the court by imposing stricter rules on recusals and potentially disqualifying conservative justices from certain decisions. According to them, Congress should not interfere in the court’s affairs and should respect the separation of powers.
The legislation itself would require the establishment of a new Supreme Court “code of conduct” modeled on existing ethics codes in lower courts. It would promote increased disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, implement a review process for justices’ decisions not to recuse through impartial panels of judges, and mandate public, written explanations for such decisions. Additionally, the legislation aims to enhance transparency regarding gifts received by justices and establish procedures for investigating and enforcing violations related to required disclosures.
During the committee’s deliberations, Republican members proposed several amendments focused on enhancing security for judges in response to a previous incident involving Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. However, most of these amendments were rejected by the majority Democrats, who argued that they were diverting attention from the primary ethics reforms.
In response to claims that the ethics legislation is politically motivated, Durbin pointed out that he introduced similar legislation more than a decade ago when the court leaned more liberal. He emphasized that the proposed reforms would apply equally to all justices, regardless of their political leanings.
The recent push for ethics legislation was sparked by news reports detailing Justice Thomas’ undisclosed transactions and luxury vacations provided by GOP donor Harlan Crow. The nonprofit investigative journalism organization ProPublica uncovered these activities. Justice Roberts declined to testify, citing the need to preserve judicial independence, but submitted a statement outlining the court’s ethical principles and practices. However, the inconsistency in adhering to these principles and practices since then has been noted.
In addition to Justice Sotomayor’s involvement in book sales, the AP reported that universities have utilized justices’ visits as a means to secure financial contributions from wealthy donors. Justices have also taken expenses-paid teaching trips to attractive locations that offer minimal classroom instruction.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
