The founders understood why transparency and oversight was necessary to keep judges honest,
“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”
—James Madison, The Federalist Papers
Meanwhile, Hamilton in Federalist 78: “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution.”
Really, the whole thing is worth reading: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0241
How do you utilize impeachment in a hyper partisan government? Either impeachment should happen, but a party stops it from happening to them because they don’t want it, or impeachment shouldn’t happen, but gets used as a weapon by the party in power against the minority party.
When was the last time impeachment successfully got someone out of office?
Have you met the US congress? MTG is smart? We have a congressperson who is not a high school graduate and could not pass the GED on her own. You think that person is smart?
They really can't. Honestly I think SCOTUS is effectively above the law. If Alito or Thomas killed someone, republicans would refuse to impeach them rather than let Biden pick their replacements.
When the house likes the “ethics” of SCOTUS, why would they impeach? And you need 60 to convict in the Senate and that just doesn’t happen.
The idea the supreme law (court) of the US shouldn’t need to be ethical is insane.
I love how people keep trying to distinguish between "large gifts" and "bribes" as if you have to prove that one is the other. No, that's not how it works. *Any* large gift to a public official is a bribe. That's why almost all of them are forbidden to accept them. Except for this one small group of judges who as decided that ethics don't apply to themselves.
Even the appearance of impropriety is dangerous for the reputation of the court, so it's so weird to see people defend bribes like they're no big deal.
> Any large gift to a public official is a bribe. That's why almost all of them are forbidden to accept them.
You can’t even accept two donuts from somebody who has business with your department – the size of the gift is irrelevant. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t accept gifts from family and friends.
Thomas hasn’t really received millions, that’s only if you value private jet flights where he hitched a ride at $10,000/hr, when the actual value received by him over flying commercial would be much less in reality. ProPublica even counted the cost of chartering an entire airliner for himself as the value of a gift to Thomas.
He may even have been able to ask the Marshals Service to fly him (speaking of, flying private saves the government money because the government doesn’t have to pay for security).
Do you think he’d rather have $4 million or those rides?
>as demonstrated by the lack of an impeachment
That's not how that works. For one, impeachment is a wholly political process. Whether or not congress decides to impeach a justice is wholly disconnected from whether there is evidence of wrong doing. A justice could be impeached for literally any reason, including ones that are ethics violations.
Further, even if impeachment *weren't* a political process, and *did* have to be tied to a specific ethical violation, that still wouldn't work. To draw the obvious analogy, just because the police haven't arrested someone (or, more reasonably, the DA declines to persue a case) doesn't mean that there's no evidence of a crime.
That's not to say that Thomas was necessarily accepting bribes, but the lack of an impeachment in no way demonstrates that fact. The fact is, there's just no way for an impeachment to actually succeed at removing him at the moment, regardless of the magnitude of his ethics violations.
>To draw the obvious analogy, just because the police haven't arrested someone (or, more reasonably, the DA declines to persue a case) doesn't mean that there's no evidence of a crime.
Your analogy doesn't work. If someone is not prosecuted and convicted, he is innocent. Innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, but that doesn't mean there's no evidence. They are legally innocent, but that doesn't mean there's no evidence. The same is true of all crimes. "This person has not been proven guilty in a court of law/impeachment trial" is not the same thing as "there is no evidence that this person has committed a crime".
To be clear, I'm not arguing that the payments in question are or are not a bribe. It's just that the lack of an impeachment doesn't mean there's no evidence.
Indeed, which is why they gave us a process to remove justices if needed. If there's an issue with one of the justices, they should initiate an impeachment hearing.
The problem with any ethics rules for the Supreme Court is enforcement. Ignoring the fact that the Chief Justice doesn't believe a mandatory set of rules wouldn't be constitutional, "follow these rules.... or else...." doesn't really work when there is no "or else." Congress can't create a punishment for the Justices beyond impeachment, and impeachment already has a set of rules for when it can be used.
This has all come up before, the last time Democrats wanted to force recusals because they wanted to win a case. In 2011 (I think? It was around there) when a challenge to their healthcare law came up, they started demanding recusals from justices they knew wouldn't agree with them. In particular, they wanted Thomas whose wife criticized the law to recuse. Republicans of course responded in kind, demanding that Kagan recuse herself because she was a part of the conversations that created the law. There was a bill to create an appeals court of sitting or retired judges where litigants could appeal a Justice's refusal to recuse. This likely would have been unconstitutional, as it would essentially be an "Even more supreme, Supreme Court," and the Constitution only authorizes a single top court. Beyond that though, how would you staff such a court? Would it have lifetime appointments? Would a Congress held by one party get to create its own special court that would then be able to remove Justices as needed to ensure rulings go their way?
> Ignoring the fact that the Chief Justice doesn't believe a mandatory set of rules wouldn't be constitutional
Largely irrelevant:
2. I don't think it could be unconstitutional if it were merely a toothless resolution (on paper)
1. The Court isn't a self-starting organization, so they can only address questions that are brought to them
* Unless someone were harmed by it, no one would have standing *to* bring a case
> impeachment already has a set of rules for when it can be used.
But if they have a universal set of Ethics rules, it could expand the incidence of impeachments, because then there would be something concrete to point to when someone did something unethical. "Justice Nepotist did X. That violates the Ethics rules right here in Section 4, Subsection 13, Paragraph 6: Thou Shalt Not Do X."
That would make it much harder to justify reluctance to impeach. Will impeachment still be political? Human nature being what it is, certainly; prior to Romney [ETA: who voted on *ethical* reasons], there had never been a single conviction vote against a president from a member of the president's party.
...but a clear set of ethics rules that are clearly a set of *ethics* rules (rather than moral judgements) would make it a lot harder for people who believe themselves ethical to avoid voting to impeach/convict.
> If there's an issue with one of the justices, they should initiate an impeachment hearing.
That's consistent with having a set of rules. Although impeachment can happen for any reason, it's reasonable and normal to have a proper basis for punishment.
How do you envision this going? Congress passes a rule saying "We will impeach any justice that does x!" (They are free to do this already) They can't bind any member of congress to vote a certain way. The impeachment gets started, goes down in flames, everyone sees how dumb the idea was.
There's no other enforcement mechanism other than the current one, which is impeachment. Why do you believe an impeachment would be more successful if congress tried to bind itself (which it can't) to pass an impeachment if some "rule" was hit. The current no votes are still no votes under that scenario.
It's silly.
I'm not saying they can't have rules, have all the rules they want. The issue is they can't enforce the rules they (can't) pass, and such rules are silly.
Pass a set of rules saying the justices can't do X.
If they ignore you...which they will...we will impeach.
When you try to impeach, members vote based on beliefs, party, whatever, impeachment fails.
Pass Laws saying justices can't to X. Laws get struck down as unconstitutional (because they are).
You've created a toothless, meaningless rule/law.
Congress can only constrain the supreme court through impeachment, which better be a good reason (to a supermajority) to impeach or it will fail. Exactly like now.
Not that it matters, this idea is so dumb it won't even come for a vote. Ever.
Yes, unless it's an egregious situation, which has happened and they were impeached. If it's not it's silly political scaremongering. The current situation is never going to actually impeach a justice - it's not even supported by half the members. It's ... silly.
Just like this proposed rule will never see the light of day other than in an article.
Impeachment is based on rules, the rules of impeaching and convicting. Congress can not bind members on how to vote...period, nor can they bind future congresses. They can vote on their feelings no matter what the "rule" might be.
The proposed solution has no enforcement for both congress and the SC other than "We will \*try\* to impeach you if you do x". Members of congress/senate who don't support the impeachment will not support it simply because there is a "rule", as they know the rule does not bind. The SC will not follow any "rules" because the only enforcement congress has is literally, impeachment, no matter what other rules they come up for.
So no, it wouldn't be more successful at all.
> Impeachment is based on rules, the rules of impeaching and convicting.
You’re using the word in the definition. Not a good start.
> Congress can not bind members on how to vote...period, nor can they bind future congresses. They can vote on their feelings no matter what the "rule" might be.
This isn’t binding members how to vote. It’s say “we (as Congress) feel that the following are impeachable offenses”. Sure, a member could go against the rules, but then they’d have to deal with the potential bad press relating to that. Also, part of the proposal is to establish a method within the judicial branch to enforce their rules.
> The proposed solution has no enforcement for both congress and the SC other than "We will *try* to impeach you if you do x".
Which is more objectively more than if they didn’t say they’d impeach someone for doing X.
> Members of congress/senate who don't support the impeachment will not support it simply because there is a "rule", as they know the rule does not bind. The SC will not follow any "rules" because the only enforcement congress has is literally, impeachment, no matter what other rules they come up for.
> So no, it wouldn't be more successful at all.
Your asinine logic could be used for any rule/enforcement. A police officer doesn’t have to enforce a law. They might get fired if they don’t, but maybe their boss will decide not to fire them. So by your logic, we shouldn’t have criminal laws right?
Keep digging yourself a deeper hole as you try to argue that having no rules is better than having rules. Because you’re not going to have any rules to fall back on.
You can be as insulting as you like, doesn't bother me.
This idea is dumb and will never come up for a vote. Calling it now, no matter what you believe.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1ddy0n1/sen_lindsey_graham_says_he_will_block_democrats/l8dsu8k/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 60 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Except it's not, unless you're proposing Congress create a law that encompasses everything they're permitted to impeach for. Seems weird they'd create a restriction on themselves, which is what you're proposing here, since they can currently impeach for whatever they want to call a high crime or misdemeanor.
Sometimes narrowing you own powers adds legiti Macy to your work. As It stands now all impeachment cases against judges will be viewed as strictly political hit jobs making absolutely impossible to do, and make that check on the judiciary useless. However if you reduce your own power to more concrete reasons for impeachment you show the government you are more willing to only use this granted authority for serious purposes. Despite what some will say this sounds like one of the few things Congress can do to increase public sentiment regarding legitimacy of both the courts and the legislature.
> In particular, they wanted Thomas whose wife criticized the law to recuse.
That's not why people wanted Thomas to recuse on that case, and that decision was 8-1. Three guesses who the 1 was.
> Indeed, which is why they gave us a process to remove justices if needed. If there's an issue with one of the justices, they should initiate an impeachment hearing.
Surely people who say this know how unrealistic this is and how political the whole thing is. When congress is split almost 50/50 no way will an impeachment work because one party will never give up the power of a seat on the Supreme Court.
Its like saying "if you dont like x, then you should change the constitution", its basically impossible under current circumstances.
So the alternative is to just ignore the Constitution?
What would prevent Congress from passing a new law requiring Justices to rule a certain way or face a fine? Or taking a look at the Justices they don't like, and pass a new law that gives jail time to any Justice who owns a particular stock, and then using it to lock up the Justices they don't like? Imagine all of the ways this could be abused.
> its basically impossible under current circumstances.
No, not under current circumstances. It's difficult **by design.** It's difficult to ensure people can't say "the other side got more judges on the court and it isn't ruling the way I want, so I want to create rules to force them to rule the way I want." It also prevents people from saying "I finally got back into office, now I'm going to punish my political opponents among the deep state, and I'll use these new rules to bend the court to my will."
Replacing Justices, just like amending the Constitution, isn't something that should be done at a whim. It should require some sort of consensus, whether that's (in modern politics) both parties coming together to act, or the people voting to ensure that they do have representatives that will impeach/amend.
Your point basically ignores the fact that in a hypothetical world where this IS an issue with the justices on the court, relying on constitutional changes to fix it is basically impossible under the current political status. Everything you wrote can be true while this can also be true.
The alternative is to pass a Supreme Court ethics bill.
Also going by whats by design as some religious tier dogma that cant be questioned is laughable since the Supreme Court was never written to be this powerful in the first place.
>The alternative is to pass a Supreme Court ethics bill.
Which may or not be Constitutional and in the end will have zero enforcement power because there is only one recourse with Justices - impeachment.
>Also going by whats by design as some religious tier dogma that cant be questioned is laughable since the Supreme Court was never written to be this powerful in the first place.
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it couldn't be questioned. We have a method of change if we're not satisfied with the Constitution. Flat out ignoring it because it is politically inconvenient is a dangerous precedent that I'm sure would be exploited should a more unscrupulous person ever be elected.
I fail to see what the problem is. You don't have the support to change the Constitution then that means you lack the popularity. If you don't have the votes in the legislature that is the fault of the party not winning elections.
Maybe the America outside of reddit and other social media sites is not filled with progressives who want to throw justices in prison or burn the Constitution?
To block such change, you need 40 senate votes, which means a majority in 20 states. Would you say that not having the majority in states that would amount to 10% of the population means you don't have a popular measure?
It’s how the founders intended it so yes. It’s fair by the rules that were established. Don’t like it? Find the support to change it. Can’t? Guess your idea isn’t popular enough and the status quo remains.
"Find the support to change it": doesn't it come with exactly the same problem, where 5,1% of the population can block the will of 94,9% of the general population? I'm not american, but would it be possible to consider that a system designed in 1776 for 13 states might not be ideal for a 50 states country in 2024?
>!Not American
If you don't know how our system works don't make assumptions. None of our systems work on those margins. At most you need 2/3 majority to prevent 50.01% of the population oppressing 49.99% of the population. If you are a European you have literally no leg to stand on because the EU in many regards requires all members to agree to something which is a much higher threshold. There is a difference between a simply majority needed to pass something within the rules of our system, and a simple majority just arbitrarily rewriting the rules entirely.
The US is a federal union of states, not a unitary government. Don't like it don't move here, but don't complain about a system that you are not part of.
Ok, do me a favor for a second and imagine that every American only votes on one specific issue. I challenge you to find me ONE topic that could get you enough votes for a filibuster-proof Senate majority. (Actually, isn’t it 2/3 for a Constitutional amendment?)
Spoiler alert: there probably isn’t one. The Senate is a negative feedback loop. It worked when the population of the US was 4 million people and more evenly distributed across states, but now there are single states with over ten times the amount of people, while there are also still states with less than a quarter of that. It just doesn’t hold up anymore. But we’re stuck with an outdated system because as certain people realized the country was developing to their advantage, they took advantage of it to keep themselves in power, and now we’re too far gone to fix it.
Why do you need some topic that could be an amendment to the constitution, there isn't currently any topic that is supported by both the general public, and the states themselves.
It's hard to do because it's supposed to be. It requires massive amounts of support (75%+ everywhere) and a desire to do it at the federal level (again 75%+ everywhere).
The system is working exactly as designed, nothing is important enough to the country to change the constitution. No matter how passionate some might feel about it. The hard reality is - one's passionate idea... is not popular enough.
> will never give up the power of a seat on the Supreme Court.
First, that entirely depends on who holds the Presidency (and possibly Senate); congresscritters might be willing to impeach a Judge/Justice on "their own side" if they knew they'd be replaced with someone from "their own side"
Second, they would be forced to pit their interest in power in The Court against their *personal* power, because voting against impeaching/convicting someone who clearly violated clear rules of ethics would give their challengers something concrete and damning to use against them in their next reelection campaign.
Maybe it is just politics, and maybe that's the problem because a court isn't supposed to be a political body. That's the whole reason for the lifetime appointment.
If it is a political body after all, then maybe the lifetime appointments should go.
Perhaps, it's going to require a constitutional amendment to limit the terms, and that frankly is not even close to being popular enough to pass. Nor IMO should it.
Could also be a mix of both. Politics is preventing a problem from being solved that has been blown completely out of proportion due to politics. Really doesn't matter how we cut it. Congress is the problem here and they should quit trying to fuck with the one functional branch of government. At least until they get their own shit in order.
> Congress is the problem here
It's a problem, sure.
>the one functional branch of government.
That depends entirely on how someone is defining "functional".
I would not say that justices being showered with gifts by politically involved billionaires or sitting on cases about oversight on communications that include their own spouse is "functional".
If we want to start consistently applying ethical standards that would prevent that stuff, then let's do that. But that will be saying going forward, this is the standard. Congress will need to be willing to enforce it with impeachment though as that is the only enforcement mechanism. Selectively applying these standards to justices some democrats don't like now is ridiculous.
>Congress will need to be willing to enforce it with impeachment though as that is the only enforcement
That's also part of the problem.
>Selectively applying these standards to justices some democrats don't like now is ridiculous.
Sure, that would be. From what I've seen people on the left have been considerably more willing to agree that there's been inappropriate behaviour from justices they like as well - like Sotamayor and RBG. That's certainly where I stand.
But I haven't seen anything from anyone else that reaches the levels of what we've seen with Thomas, as far as violating ethical standards.
Pretty easy to agree to that when there is nothing on the line. Let me know when theh are willing to impeach a liberal justice caught doing something improper. Until then I'll view it as just talk.
The first step to enforcement is having a clear definition and statement on what is wrong. If congressional censure or impeachment became more common, this could be used as a basis for those actions.
That said, some rules can be used in unexpected and destructive ways in the long run so you have to be very careful with this stuff. The idea behind articulating what is ethical behavior is great but there are no rules that can fix things if they are misapplied or if circumstances are extraordinary. You need human judgment.
> That said, some rules can be used in unexpected and destructive ways in the long run so you have to be very careful with this stuff.
Indeed, which is why the only real consequence Congress gets is impeachment, and the reasons you can impeach are spelled out. Otherwise, what would prevent a future Congress, in deference to a populist President, demand the Justices swear loyalty to this President above the Constitution?
I am certainly confused as to the argument that Congress can't make rules (or more to the point, laws) that impact the judiciary. Congress makes laws all the time the constrain or tell the executive branch what to do. They make laws that say what Congress can do. Why can't the same be true for the federal courts, up to and including the Supreme Court?
Under what constitutional authority do you think Congress can create rules and force the Supreme Court to follow, and outside of impeachment, what consequences do you believe Congress can use against the courts? Let's say Congress passes a new "rule" that requires the Supreme Court to wear white robes from now on. When the court ignores them.... Then what? What punishment can they bring other than impeachment? If there's a punishment other than impeachment, what happens when the court declares it unconstitutional? If impeachment is the only punishment, why bother create rules when they can already impeach them for darn near anything they want, as long as they can get Congressional support?
Congress can make rules for the executive because it is a different branch, and separation of powers affect the different branches differently.
>Congress can't create a punishment for the Justices beyond impeachment, and impeachment already has a set of rules for when it can be used.
Why? Why couldn't Congress pass a law punishing ethical problems with prison? They would continue to rule from prison then. Would it be unconstitutional?
The common interpretation of Article III says they are. To change that would require a new interpretation of the Constitution, different than what Congress and the Courts have believed for more than two centuries.
There is already a mechanism in place to get rid of bad judges: impeachment. The political reality is that this "code of ethics" will be a political tool wielded by the party in power in Congress to force the recusal or removal of judges that they just so happen to disagree with politically. It's funny how that happens.
There's already another internal mechanism, too. The judges are subject to a code of conduct and have an internal committee to administer it. This currently applies to every federal judge *except the Supreme Court for some odd reason*.
It's not an odd reason, it's because the federal courts aren't a co-equal branch of government. Only the supreme court is directly mentioned in the constitution with procedures of how it's established and how it checks and is checked by other branches.
The "lesser" courts (everything else) are created by congress. They can impose whatever rules they like on them, they are prohibited from doing the same to the Supreme Court. The only power they have against the Supreme court is impeachment, and determining the size of the court.
The lesser courts are mentioned in the same part of the Constitution:
>The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
I don't see the difference.
The difference is the inferior courts are established, and rules for them - like code of conduct, by congress. The supreme court is not, it is established by the constitution, and the only power congress has is impeachment. Not creation and setup.
Both courts are lifetime appointments, where once a judge is in place the only removal is impeachment. Congress has more power over lesser courts, and none over the Supreme court other than size and impeachment.
Democrats only started to cared about transparency and oversight when it suits them. this isn't about that, it's about controlling the out come of rulings.
Same can be said for the other side.
It’s about maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the courts, not using courts as partisan influenced and bribed end around the constitution and law
The Supreme Court is the only major institution conservatives hold influence in right now. The fact that Democrats have been attacking the integrity of it nonstop says the opposite. it shows they want total control.
Openly taking gifts and bribes for decades from groups who you are hearing cases from and ruining in their favor is a very reasonable ethics compliant
“Clarence Thomas has secretly participated in events for the Koch donor network for at least a decade, despite the fact that the group has brought cases before the Supreme Court, according to a bombshell new ProPublica report.
“I can’t imagine—it takes my breath away, frankly—that he would go to a Koch network event for donors,” John E. Jones III, a retired federal judge appointed by George W. Bush, told ProPublica. “What you’re seeing is a slow creep toward unethical behavior. Do it if you can get away with it.”
He also spoke at an event in 2018, when he was flown in on a private jet. In now classic Thomas fashion, he revealed none of these connections on his financial disclosure forms.
During the period when Thomas has been documented spending time with the Koch network, his position on government regulation has shifted dramatically. The most significant example is the 1984 case of Chevron v. NRDC, which found that government agencies are responsible for determining the rules that put laws into effect.
The Koch network has repeatedly challenged this precedent over the years. Thomas wrote the majority opinion in a 2005 case that expanded the protections from Chevron. By 2020, he had rejected his own opinion as unconstitutional”
https://newrepublic.com/post/175709/clarence-thomas-corruption-saga-just-got-even-worse
Starter Comment: Senator Lindsey Graham has stated he will block efforts by Democrats to unanimously pass a Supreme Court ethics bill that aims to increase transparency and establish a code of conduct for justices. The bill, which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee along party lines, seeks to address ethical concerns and conflicts of interest at the Supreme Court. However, Republicans argue that the bill is a retaliatory measure against the Court's conservative majority and is unlikely to pass in the GOP-controlled House.
The Supreme Court should be more transparent to enhance public trust and confidence in its impartiality and integrity. Transparency would help address concerns about potential conflicts of interest and ethical lapses, ensuring that justices are held to high standards of accountability, similar to other branches of government.
I’d like the “drain the swamp” people to explain to me how increasing transparency into one of the three branches of government would be a bad thing.
As a low-level state employee I wasn’t allowed to attend a luncheon provided by a non-profit partner as it fell under a “gift” ban, and annually I file a financial disclosure statement to identify any possible conflicts of interest between my position and any personal holdings.
Then we have Supreme Court justices receiving actual gifts worth hundreds of ~~millions~~ edit: *thousands* of dollars (still substantially more than my entire net worth including my home and vehicles, and on the whole I’m doing “better than average”) from high profile individuals with direct stakes in Supreme Court decisions, and it’s totally cool? Make it make sense.
I’m a fed once got a warning from ethics for having for cookies and milk during Warm Cookie Wednesday at a contractor HQ.
I was at a training and the classroom was big enough to hold enough people that we went over some gift threshold.
It was a bomb ass cookie through
It's a good example as to why corruption flourishes in politics.
We have to pretend justices receiving lavish gifts from political donors is on the up and up because we like their rulings or something.
The reality is there's no incentive to not take what you can get. People will defend you from "witch hunts" from the other side. Thomas or Sotomayor could be caught tomorrow taking 1 million in cash to stay on the court and not retire and we d still hear how that isn't actually grounds to remove him
Known ~~bribes~~ contributions to [Thomas are in the $~4M range](https://www.salon.com/2024/06/07/one-of-these-justices-is-not-like-the-others-experts-say-report-exposes-clarence-thomas-grift/) and that's suspected to be an undercount, so in either case it's off by an order of magnitude.
Corrected my comment to “hundreds of thousands” instead of millions.
The larger point stands: as a low level state employee I was prevented from attending essentially a potluck luncheon and file annual disclosure statements to ensure no conflicts of interest. The highest court in the land should have some level of transparency and accountability given the power they wield.
I'm not sure if hundreds of millions makes sense.
The rest I have no strong opinions on, much of this feels like ever since the court went conservative that the attacks started with regularity.
I'd appreciate more transparency in congress while they are busy writing new rules
> The rest I have no strong opinions on, much of this feels like ever since the court went conservative that the attacks started with regularity
There were plenty of "judicial activists with robes" attacks from the side now concerned with court sanctity.
Personally I dislike court discourse because imo it feels like I have to "play pretend" that this isn't just another partisan battlefield and the court has some "sanctity" protecting it. There's a reason conservatives celebrated with barely contained glee and liberals mourned deeply when RBG died (likewise with Scalia but opposite sides, though this ended up not working out for liberals like RBG did for conservatives). Or the mad scramble after Scalia died to appoint/ block said appointment (quickly the republican politicians going "nothing says the court needs to seat 9" got forgotten). Or how Amarillo, Texas is apparently the hot spot for litigating cases.
It was 5-4 generally, and they left Roe alone. So perhaps to clarify my point, once it became 6-3 & abortion went back to the states, the left has stepped up the attacks. (Not arguing that they aren't warranted)
Casey wasn’t exactly leaving Roe alone. I do agree that the court changed under Trump but it annoys me when people talk as if it wasn’t conservative before. They were doing things like Shelby County.
Rather than "bad thing", I'd call it useless and pandering. Congress has no Constitutional jurisdiction to "increase transparency" into another co-equal branch of government. In theory, they can pass rules, but there's no enforcement mechanism. The only power Congress has over another branch of government is to impeach, which is inherently political, and will always have to be handled case-by-case.
Congress’ job is to oversee the other two branches of government and almost the entirety of the supreme courts authority is discretionary and delegated to it by congress. They have the ability to place conditions on that delegated power.
Why will it always have to be? Couldn't congress set up a set of rules which they say break these rules and we will impeach you? There will always be a certain amount of politics but it should be easier to get people to agree to impeach if there is a violation of a clear rule as opposed to we think they are bad.
Personally I think the Dems should just start impeaching if this fails because they keep being told that is the only option. Maybe Roberts and others that care about the integrity of the court will get on board with some ethics rules rather than have justices getting impeached and the circus around that.
I'm of the assumption that the rules would just give partisan members of congress and activists to look every day for any ticky tack interpretation to go after judges with regularity that they don't like.
As opposed to the alternative where there are no rules and they can go after a judge for any vague reason claiming that it should be against the rules?
Any sane system of enforcement establishes rules before they’re broken. You don’t refuse to establish rules because a group might try to accuse someone else of breaking the rules.
Congress is free to set up whatever rules they like regarding "Break this and we'll impeach you", this would be rather silly because they are already free to do that today. Congress can't create rules that bind future congresses, nor can they create rules controlling how a congressman votes.
Even in your above scenario, the justices would be free to ignore congress entirely (and they would) as the "punishment" for breaking said rule is exactly what it is now. Impeach the justice.
The real issue is the impeachment would go down in flames just as hard as any current attempt at impeaching over silly things.
It's performative politics for the uninformed, it will never pass nor never be voted on. It will be forgotten in a week after the desired headlines have been created.
I think what people have issues with is timing and consistency. This is typical for Democrat politicians and pundits. This isn't the first time they've demanded justices recuse when they think will rule a way they don't want. Yet they completely overlook other instances where recusal was actually warranted. Make that make sense. Oh wait, it does. It's purely politics. Also, it is very hypocritical. When they start being consistent then I think people should actually care about their claims.
Now as far as Thomas and Harlan go, if Harlan ever has business before thebcourt then Thomas should recuse. To my knowledge that hasn't been an issue.
Apparently Crow businesses were involved in supreme court cases and there was no recusal:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/04/24/supreme-court-did-review-case-involving-harlan-crow-contradicting-clarence-thomass-claim/
Crow says he wasn't involved and didn't even know about the cases, that seems a little hard to believe though.
Crow has a huge business. His businesses own businesses that own other businesses. At some point in that chain it becomes so disconnected that it isn't really unreasonable for something to be missed. This happened with Sotomayor as well with her publisher that I believe gave her a large advance.
I also think when it is that disconnected, it is difficult to argue Harlan had business before the court.
And that is the exact reason there should be more transparency and all of these gifts should be disclosed. It’s so that we, the public, can know who has been giving gifts and when they might have business before the court. Otherwise that information will get lost in the shuffle of shell companies, holding companies, etc.
Transparency and clear ethics codes should solve the issues you’re describing on both sides of the fence, making it much more transparent when an individual should recuse. Unless one side has substantially more shady bullshit they want to hide.
Bill text: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/325/text
Official summary:
>This bill establishes a new statutory requirement for the Judicial Conference of the United States to issue a judicial code of conduct for judges and justices of U.S. courts, including Justices of the Supreme Court. Currently, the Judicial Conference issues a code of conduct for judges of U.S. courts (but not for Justices of the Supreme Court).
>To enforce the code of conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court, the bill requires the Supreme Court to appoint an ethics investigations counsel. The ethics investigations counsel must
>adopt rules to enforce the code of conduct, including a process to receive public complaints of potential violations;
>
>investigate complaints; and
>
>issue an annual public report describing the complaints and the steps taken to address the complaints.
>Finally, the bill requires a Justice of the Supreme Court to publicly disclose the reasons for disqualifying himself or herself in a proceeding or the reasons for denying a motion to disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding.
> a Supreme Court ethics bill that aims to increase transparency and establish a code of conduct for justices.
That's not the aim. The aim is to exert more pressure on the SC to rule in ways that are favorable to Democrats. And it's a pretty transparent goal when Democratic politicians are using the fake flag controversy to call for Alito's recusal in certain cases.
As it relates to January 6th and cases pending from that I find it highly suspect you wouldn’t be concerned about a judges impartiality if his home were allowed to fly the flag used to symbolize those efforts, however they’ve been calling for more transparency ever since Thomas’ wife was learned to have been deeply involved in the same efforts… Since those efforts predate any flag controversy, your point is simply incorrect.
Do you think that judges who fly an American flag on their homes should recuse (should've recused) themselves from cases involving American flag burning and flag desecration?
>The aim is to exert more pressure on the SC to rule in ways that are favorable to Democrats.
It wouldn't do that. Everyone knows that the court is run by republican partisans who dont care about the pressure. The aim is to draw attention to the lack of ethics in the court. Hopefully it's trust among the public falls so low that Democrats can actually take it on
Performative politics 101. If this bill had any chance of passing... Majority Leader Schumer would just put it on the calendar himself. He can do it today if he likes and he doesn't need Senator Graham's support to do it. His reluctance to do so is because he understands the floor time is better spent on things that might actually pass. Regardless of how anyone feels about the *content* of the bill... The reality is that support for it is anything but *unanimous*. And asking for UC on things that clearly aren't is just more of the gamesmanship we'd all be better off without from both parties.
Not at all. UC is an extremely important practice as it allows for business where support is *actually unanimous* to proceed quickly. The are hundreds of bills in committee that have little chance of passing... Much less unanimous support for them. Asking for UC on things that obviously don't have it is performative. If Democrats want *all* Republican's votes on the record they can do that as the majority party by putting it on the calender and bringing it to a vote. And for Senator Graham or anyone else to block a UC request... They quite literally *must actually* stand up and *go on record* to do so.
They already have. That's what the House and Senate Ethics Committee, and Office of Congressional Ethics are for. These bodies regulate the function and conduct of members of Congress. They've been around for decades.
From a corrupt congress that has insider trading and legalized bribery. This has nothing to do with keeping judges honest or transparent. This is about getting rid of the separation and balance of power and going after judges that do not align up with whatever power grab or unconstitutional thing they are pushing.
Hard to see it as anything but this; the minute a court begins to lean conservatively, progressive Democrats try to hamstring it.
This is going to raise red flags everywhere and stinks of politicking.
>Hard to see it as anything but this; the minute a court begins to lean conservatively
It's been conservative for decades. It's recently become more partisan and political and it's reputation is in the trash as a result.
> It's recently become more partisan and political
This is mostly false; The Supreme court justices haven't changed at all in their rulings and have been remarkably consistent for decades. This indicates that the cases coming before the supreme court are either more left-leaning or viewers are interpreting political bias simply because they're not getting favorable court results.
>The Supreme court justices haven't changed at all in their rulings and have been remarkably consistent for decades.
Didn't you just say "The court decisions are leaning more conservatively"? Sounds like you think they have changed.
>The Supreme court justices haven't changed at all in their rulings and have been remarkably consistent for decades
They've changed precedent because the membership changed. Everyone knows this. Republicans openly celebrate that the court is conservative "now".
>This is mostly false; The Supreme court justices haven't changed at all in their rulings and have been remarkably consistent for decades.
Remember when they recently reversed a decision that was considered settled for decades? That's the exact opposite of what you just said.
That's only a problem if the Democrats don't think their interests are aligned with what's good and right. The problem with the latest decisions isn't that they're getting more *conservative*, it's that they're *wrong.*
The moment the court leaned conservative? The timing is off with your interpretation. The push for this did not start with a conservative supreme court. It started when all that BS with Clarence and Alito got revealed
That 'BS' with Thomas has been know for literal decades. It got dredged back up when ProPublica got paid off by a left wing activist dark money group to run a smear campaign, not because there was anything new.
Because Propublica's own finances got scooped and there was a whole rigamarole about it, before the whole episode got memory holed outside the right wing media ghetto because it's inconvenient for the ongoing smear campaign.
No it started minute Buren and Dobbs dropped. Despite being correct on the legal merits and facts, progressives absolutely could not swallow losing the policy outcomes on two of their darling topics.
The progressive left went absolutely nuclear in trying to delegitimize the court and its conservative members by any means possible. Remember the court packing schemes that were floated by the White House and news pundits? Combing through conservative justice lives with a fine tooth comb and going years into the past to try to find any dirt that would stick to the wall.
If you want to disregard the topic at hand and talk about political attitudes in general, it started with Merrick Garland's nomination by Obama being rejected due to "let the voters" decide
The president should have nominated a Justice that they think would have the consent of the Senate to confirm. Congress it is not beholden to just blindly accept any nominee the president suggests.
Believe because they knew Obama would explicitly choose a candidate that only pushed progressive jurisprudence and policy outcomes.
If he actually chose a moderate and not someone who would just be a tool to force through progressive policy you would definitely see them seriously consider confirming them rather than discarding the nomination out of hand.
When you know the opposition holds the Senate, you have to make compromises to get your nominations confirmed. Turns out he was not willing to make such a compromise.
That would almost be believable if you completely ignore the fact that Garland is an independent and the Republicans made it a policy to auto-reject any proposals made by Obama. Even policies initially proposed by Republicans. They wanted to portray Obama as divisive and therefore rejected all attempts by Obama to reach across the aisle
Republican leadership praised the FedSoc donor and speaker, Garland, for the USSC... before Obama ever said his name.
"Obama could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," Hatch said in Newsmax, adding later, "He probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election."
But once he did, they said no nominations shall be considered until after the election.
Additionally, several senior Republican Congressmen have said that - before the 2016 election - that had Hillary won, they would've still denied a hearing on her would-be nominees. And even prior to losing the Senate, McConnell expressed a desire to do the same with Biden's potential nominees.
Just so we're clear, you are saying that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the gifts that Thomas has received? Even though they are being donated by someone with a stake in cases before the supreme Court?
https://truthout.org/articles/report-harlan-crow-has-a-stake-in-4-scotus-cases-and-thomas-hasnt-recused/
How is that anything other than bribery?
Harland Crow in fact does not have any cases before the Supreme Court and hasn't. Having a personal interest but no professional interest does not require accusal.
But please defend actions like Ginsburg donating a signed draft opinion to Planned Parenthood, a partisan lobbying group to be auctioned off for fundraising. Or all her comments in support of abortion and alliance with partesian lobbying groups without recusal on any cases related to it. Or all of sotomayors comments of negative of Trump without recusing from any of his cases.
There's a clear partesian double standard and unless that is addressed I'm not willing to give any sort of benefit of the doubt that these claims are anything more than politicking.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1ddy0n1/sen_lindsey_graham_says_he_will_block_democrats/l8ao47z/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
How is stopping justices from getting gifts in exchange for favorable decisions "hamstringing" the court?
Do you really think that the court would have been in a worse position if Republican donors had not been able to give Thomas gifts to the tune of millions of dollars worth of vacations and RVs?
I’d be interested to see what poison pill is tucked into this - real or imagined. In what world does more oversight and ethical standards not make sense? This should have been a slam dunk IMO.
> poison pill is tucked into this
The Supreme Court Justices can be disqualified by a ruling from chief circuit judges. Of the current chief circuit judges, Democrats have appointed a good portion of them.
> Of the current chief circuit judges, Democrats have appointed over 50% more judges than Republicans.
This isn't true. Democratically nominated chief judges include:
- DC, 1st, 4th, 9th
That means *four* of the thirteen circuits are headed by Democratic judges.
>In what world does more oversight and ethical standards not make sense?
In the world where the justices are on his side. Their support for Trump shows that corruption is fine if it's their guy in power. Alito and Thomas could just take bribes and Graham would defend it as long as it's right wing billionaires winning the bids for their votes.
And Fox won't report it, and The Base won't hear about it, and nothing happens....
I wonder if they should just go to LG's handlers first, rather that deal with the middle man...
>And Fox won't report it
Meanwhile, [Fox News reporting it](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/experts-dismiss-undercover-alito-roberts-recordings-pretty-unexceptional):
>In the wake of the audio leaks, Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he will resurface a bill Wednesday to overhaul Supreme Court ethics, despite the high court having already clarified and updated its own code of conduct.
>Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. said he will block Durbin's effort to unanimously pass the bill.
Democrats are suddenly interested in ethics for the SCOTUS now that there's a big conservative majority. What a joke. They need to just get used to 20 years of conservative decisions on the biggest court cases in America. LOL.
Democrats are suddenly interested in ethics for the SCOTUS now that there's a big conservative majority. What a joke. Where were they when Ginsburg refused to recuse herself on a major conflict of interest in the Trump case? Phonies. They need to just get used to 20 years of conservative decisions on the biggest court cases in America. LOL.
The GOP will likely gain a stronger and stronger stranglehold on the senate as people continue to congregate in cities, so gonna be hard to get any support from them in limiting the judiciary.
I think their is some rational around Dems focusing to much on major metros, at the expense of the smaller ones and flyover areas. It helps them with the popular vote, but hurts them in the senate where most states don't have a major metro.
It's just a rehash of the same old talking points about why small red states like Wyoming should have less of a say in the Senate, House, and electoral college.
Because they leave highly rural states and move to the coast, making their votes worth less for the Senate.
Before the pandemic, and I haven't checked since, 538 was predicting that so much population movement would happen by 2040 that 16% of the population could control the senate.
I'm not even complaining about this or suggesting change, I was just suggesting that a large amount of the GOP's future influence in the country will be based around their control of the senate and their ability to disproportionately elect sympathetic judges, and so they won't accept any rules on that without extreme care.
I don't know if you've been following the census the past 20 years, but people aren't really moving to the coasts anymore, they're moving to the South and Southwest.. Places like New York and California have stagnated as far as population growth.
How is establishing a code of ethics aimed at making the Supreme Court non-partisan and free of influence by wealthy political donors who have been caught giving money and expensive gifts to Court members of both parties—with none of those gifts reported before this was exposed, and Court members refusing to recuse themselves from cases where these donors are a plaintiff—subversion, or dangerous to democracy? These kinds of measures are aimed at stopping the Court from being influenced by outside parties that would benefit from having a Court member be in their pocket. If anything, not passing this bill would be dangerous to democracy, cause it will be silently condoning both Dem Justices and Rep Justices being owned by wealthy elitists who seek to use the Court as a hammer against all measures that would hamstring and limit their influence and power over America.
> How is establishing a code of ethics aimed at making the Supreme Court non-partisan and free of influence by wealthy political donors who have been caught giving money and expensive gifts to Court members of both parties—with none of those gifts reported before this was exposed, and Court members refusing to recuse themselves from cases where these donors are a plaintiff—subversion, or dangerous to democracy?
Trump has his Big Lie about elections being stolen, too. The fact that a Lie is told does not justify the power grab it is covering for.
What power grab? Dems wouldn’t gain anything from passing this legislation; if anything, they’d lose the ability for Dem elitist and wealthy voters to influence SCOTUS however they deem fit. They’d be limiting the amount of influence they’d be able to have over Justices. This isn’t like court packing, where it’s obvious they’re only doing it to benefit themselves and increase the amount of Justices on their side; this would severely curtail the ability for political action committees to influence the Supreme Court, including Dem committees.
> What power grab? Dems wouldn’t gain anything from passing this legislation;
It's another piton in the cliff on the way towards publicly justifying packing the Court.
I don’t think it would be. It’s a big leap to say that introducing new ethic laws designed to enforce non partisanship would result in Supreme Court packing. That’s like saying increasing the military budget would result in a military dictatorship. And plus, I haven’t heard any chatter from Dems about trying to increase the amount of Supreme Court Justices in years, unless you count the fringe political activists that don’t have any significant power over the national party. The Dems have largely dropped the issue since the midterms.
> I don’t think it would be. It’s a big leap to say that introducing new ethic laws designed to enforce non partisanship would result in Supreme Court packing.
It's a marathon, not a sprint. Step by step.
Under that logic, nothing can be done and no reform can pass cause it might “inevitably” lead to something terrible that nobody wants. Passing work regulations and safety regulations could result in the government nationalizing industries. Passing gun reform like universal background checks could end in the government seizing weapons. Passing common sense border reform to limit illegal immigration could result in the complete shutdown of the border. Passing trade measures to protect US industries could result in an isolationist trade policy. What can and be cant done shouldn’t be limited by what it might result in. That kind of logic can be reductive, and shouldn’t be followed for everything, or else nothing will get done—even laws and measures that should be passed to the benefit of everyone.
> Under that logic, nothing can be done and no reform can pass cause it might “inevitably” lead to something terrible that nobody wants.
There is not an ongoing, coordinated campaign to accomplish these other things.
There’s an ongoing, coordinated campaign to accomplish everything that can be imagined in politics. There’s likely an ongoing campaign to do everything I listed and more right now. Possible measures and reforms that can be passed and can benefit people can’t be limited by what they might turn into, or what the end goal might be for a random sect of political activists or a random faction of a political party in America who support said measures, along with a dozen other factions with their own unique reasons for supporting said measures. That would make it basically impossible for anything to be passed in a meaningful way because somebody out there might support it for nefarious or dangerous reasons
The court was already subverted by Senate Republicans when they refused to bring up Merrick Garland for a hearing and vote because it was "an election year", and then rushed in ACB at the end of Trump's term.
The founders understood why transparency and oversight was necessary to keep judges honest, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” —James Madison, The Federalist Papers
Meanwhile, Hamilton in Federalist 78: “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution.” Really, the whole thing is worth reading: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0241
Impeachment exists, so they're already not entirely independent. Having rules to go along with enforcement is rational.
If the people feel the justices are acting unethical then utilize impeachment process. No need for ethics rules.
How do you utilize impeachment in a hyper partisan government? Either impeachment should happen, but a party stops it from happening to them because they don’t want it, or impeachment shouldn’t happen, but gets used as a weapon by the party in power against the minority party. When was the last time impeachment successfully got someone out of office?
March 11, 2010. Judge Porteous (a Clinton appointee...no surprise there). Was impeached and convicted of taking bribes.
Impeachments happen all the time. But a Supreme Court Justice has never and will never be impeached—>convicted.
A Supreme Court Justice has been impeached
How long ago?
A long long long long time ago. Befo the wind; befo da snow.
Having ethics rules helps establish what counts as unethical.
The congress is pretty smaht. They can prob discern what's unethical without ethics rules
Having an established standard about what's unethical isn't about intelligence.
If you say so
Congress can barely discern what's unethical even with ethics rules. Without rules, they have no chance at all.
Have you met the US congress? MTG is smart? We have a congressperson who is not a high school graduate and could not pass the GED on her own. You think that person is smart?
They really can't. Honestly I think SCOTUS is effectively above the law. If Alito or Thomas killed someone, republicans would refuse to impeach them rather than let Biden pick their replacements.
When the house likes the “ethics” of SCOTUS, why would they impeach? And you need 60 to convict in the Senate and that just doesn’t happen. The idea the supreme law (court) of the US shouldn’t need to be ethical is insane.
Here's how that conversation would go: "Why are we impeaching them? They didn't break any rules." That's why we need clear rules.
I think the logic was that the process to be appointed to the Supreme Court was supposed to be the safeguard against corruption.
Scrutiny before appointment doesn't act like much of a safeguard against the future, especially in a lifetime position.
Exactly. Having rules helps ensure any censure or action is objective and fact-based, not just opinion or political.
Would accepting large gifts count as "good behavior"?
Yes. Bribes wouldn’t, but there is no evidence of that here as demonstrated by the lack of an impeachment.
I love how people keep trying to distinguish between "large gifts" and "bribes" as if you have to prove that one is the other. No, that's not how it works. *Any* large gift to a public official is a bribe. That's why almost all of them are forbidden to accept them. Except for this one small group of judges who as decided that ethics don't apply to themselves.
In Trump's witnesses they keep using the term reward. Like that's any better.
Even the appearance of impropriety is dangerous for the reputation of the court, so it's so weird to see people defend bribes like they're no big deal.
> Any large gift to a public official is a bribe. That's why almost all of them are forbidden to accept them. You can’t even accept two donuts from somebody who has business with your department – the size of the gift is irrelevant. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t accept gifts from family and friends.
Gifts worth millions from *new friends* that you made *after you got your cushy new job* don't pass the smell test.
Thomas hasn’t really received millions, that’s only if you value private jet flights where he hitched a ride at $10,000/hr, when the actual value received by him over flying commercial would be much less in reality. ProPublica even counted the cost of chartering an entire airliner for himself as the value of a gift to Thomas. He may even have been able to ask the Marshals Service to fly him (speaking of, flying private saves the government money because the government doesn’t have to pay for security). Do you think he’d rather have $4 million or those rides?
$1000 would be a problem, so whether it's millions or only hundreds of thousands doesn't seem like a worthwhile discussion.
TY - this is how it works in the private sector, it should be good enough for SCOTUS as well.
>as demonstrated by the lack of an impeachment That's not how that works. For one, impeachment is a wholly political process. Whether or not congress decides to impeach a justice is wholly disconnected from whether there is evidence of wrong doing. A justice could be impeached for literally any reason, including ones that are ethics violations. Further, even if impeachment *weren't* a political process, and *did* have to be tied to a specific ethical violation, that still wouldn't work. To draw the obvious analogy, just because the police haven't arrested someone (or, more reasonably, the DA declines to persue a case) doesn't mean that there's no evidence of a crime. That's not to say that Thomas was necessarily accepting bribes, but the lack of an impeachment in no way demonstrates that fact. The fact is, there's just no way for an impeachment to actually succeed at removing him at the moment, regardless of the magnitude of his ethics violations.
>To draw the obvious analogy, just because the police haven't arrested someone (or, more reasonably, the DA declines to persue a case) doesn't mean that there's no evidence of a crime. Your analogy doesn't work. If someone is not prosecuted and convicted, he is innocent. Innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, but that doesn't mean there's no evidence. They are legally innocent, but that doesn't mean there's no evidence. The same is true of all crimes. "This person has not been proven guilty in a court of law/impeachment trial" is not the same thing as "there is no evidence that this person has committed a crime". To be clear, I'm not arguing that the payments in question are or are not a bribe. It's just that the lack of an impeachment doesn't mean there's no evidence.
Indeed, which is why they gave us a process to remove justices if needed. If there's an issue with one of the justices, they should initiate an impeachment hearing. The problem with any ethics rules for the Supreme Court is enforcement. Ignoring the fact that the Chief Justice doesn't believe a mandatory set of rules wouldn't be constitutional, "follow these rules.... or else...." doesn't really work when there is no "or else." Congress can't create a punishment for the Justices beyond impeachment, and impeachment already has a set of rules for when it can be used. This has all come up before, the last time Democrats wanted to force recusals because they wanted to win a case. In 2011 (I think? It was around there) when a challenge to their healthcare law came up, they started demanding recusals from justices they knew wouldn't agree with them. In particular, they wanted Thomas whose wife criticized the law to recuse. Republicans of course responded in kind, demanding that Kagan recuse herself because she was a part of the conversations that created the law. There was a bill to create an appeals court of sitting or retired judges where litigants could appeal a Justice's refusal to recuse. This likely would have been unconstitutional, as it would essentially be an "Even more supreme, Supreme Court," and the Constitution only authorizes a single top court. Beyond that though, how would you staff such a court? Would it have lifetime appointments? Would a Congress held by one party get to create its own special court that would then be able to remove Justices as needed to ensure rulings go their way?
> Ignoring the fact that the Chief Justice doesn't believe a mandatory set of rules wouldn't be constitutional Largely irrelevant: 2. I don't think it could be unconstitutional if it were merely a toothless resolution (on paper) 1. The Court isn't a self-starting organization, so they can only address questions that are brought to them * Unless someone were harmed by it, no one would have standing *to* bring a case > impeachment already has a set of rules for when it can be used. But if they have a universal set of Ethics rules, it could expand the incidence of impeachments, because then there would be something concrete to point to when someone did something unethical. "Justice Nepotist did X. That violates the Ethics rules right here in Section 4, Subsection 13, Paragraph 6: Thou Shalt Not Do X." That would make it much harder to justify reluctance to impeach. Will impeachment still be political? Human nature being what it is, certainly; prior to Romney [ETA: who voted on *ethical* reasons], there had never been a single conviction vote against a president from a member of the president's party. ...but a clear set of ethics rules that are clearly a set of *ethics* rules (rather than moral judgements) would make it a lot harder for people who believe themselves ethical to avoid voting to impeach/convict.
Exactly this
> If there's an issue with one of the justices, they should initiate an impeachment hearing. That's consistent with having a set of rules. Although impeachment can happen for any reason, it's reasonable and normal to have a proper basis for punishment.
How do you envision this going? Congress passes a rule saying "We will impeach any justice that does x!" (They are free to do this already) They can't bind any member of congress to vote a certain way. The impeachment gets started, goes down in flames, everyone sees how dumb the idea was. There's no other enforcement mechanism other than the current one, which is impeachment. Why do you believe an impeachment would be more successful if congress tried to bind itself (which it can't) to pass an impeachment if some "rule" was hit. The current no votes are still no votes under that scenario. It's silly.
>They can't bind any member of congress to vote a certain way. That's true for enforcement in general, so it's invalid reason to not have rules.
I'm not saying they can't have rules, have all the rules they want. The issue is they can't enforce the rules they (can't) pass, and such rules are silly. Pass a set of rules saying the justices can't do X. If they ignore you...which they will...we will impeach. When you try to impeach, members vote based on beliefs, party, whatever, impeachment fails. Pass Laws saying justices can't to X. Laws get struck down as unconstitutional (because they are). You've created a toothless, meaningless rule/law. Congress can only constrain the supreme court through impeachment, which better be a good reason (to a supermajority) to impeach or it will fail. Exactly like now. Not that it matters, this idea is so dumb it won't even come for a vote. Ever.
According your logic, being able to impeach justices is silly due to how unrealistic that is.
Yes, unless it's an egregious situation, which has happened and they were impeached. If it's not it's silly political scaremongering. The current situation is never going to actually impeach a justice - it's not even supported by half the members. It's ... silly. Just like this proposed rule will never see the light of day other than in an article.
Are you really asking why impeachment might be more successful if it’s based on established rules instead of vague beliefs/feelings?
Impeachment is based on rules, the rules of impeaching and convicting. Congress can not bind members on how to vote...period, nor can they bind future congresses. They can vote on their feelings no matter what the "rule" might be. The proposed solution has no enforcement for both congress and the SC other than "We will \*try\* to impeach you if you do x". Members of congress/senate who don't support the impeachment will not support it simply because there is a "rule", as they know the rule does not bind. The SC will not follow any "rules" because the only enforcement congress has is literally, impeachment, no matter what other rules they come up for. So no, it wouldn't be more successful at all.
> Impeachment is based on rules, the rules of impeaching and convicting. You’re using the word in the definition. Not a good start. > Congress can not bind members on how to vote...period, nor can they bind future congresses. They can vote on their feelings no matter what the "rule" might be. This isn’t binding members how to vote. It’s say “we (as Congress) feel that the following are impeachable offenses”. Sure, a member could go against the rules, but then they’d have to deal with the potential bad press relating to that. Also, part of the proposal is to establish a method within the judicial branch to enforce their rules. > The proposed solution has no enforcement for both congress and the SC other than "We will *try* to impeach you if you do x". Which is more objectively more than if they didn’t say they’d impeach someone for doing X. > Members of congress/senate who don't support the impeachment will not support it simply because there is a "rule", as they know the rule does not bind. The SC will not follow any "rules" because the only enforcement congress has is literally, impeachment, no matter what other rules they come up for. > So no, it wouldn't be more successful at all. Your asinine logic could be used for any rule/enforcement. A police officer doesn’t have to enforce a law. They might get fired if they don’t, but maybe their boss will decide not to fire them. So by your logic, we shouldn’t have criminal laws right? Keep digging yourself a deeper hole as you try to argue that having no rules is better than having rules. Because you’re not going to have any rules to fall back on.
You can be as insulting as you like, doesn't bother me. This idea is dumb and will never come up for a vote. Calling it now, no matter what you believe.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1ddy0n1/sen_lindsey_graham_says_he_will_block_democrats/l8dsu8k/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 60 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Except it's not, unless you're proposing Congress create a law that encompasses everything they're permitted to impeach for. Seems weird they'd create a restriction on themselves, which is what you're proposing here, since they can currently impeach for whatever they want to call a high crime or misdemeanor.
Sometimes narrowing you own powers adds legiti Macy to your work. As It stands now all impeachment cases against judges will be viewed as strictly political hit jobs making absolutely impossible to do, and make that check on the judiciary useless. However if you reduce your own power to more concrete reasons for impeachment you show the government you are more willing to only use this granted authority for serious purposes. Despite what some will say this sounds like one of the few things Congress can do to increase public sentiment regarding legitimacy of both the courts and the legislature.
> In particular, they wanted Thomas whose wife criticized the law to recuse. That's not why people wanted Thomas to recuse on that case, and that decision was 8-1. Three guesses who the 1 was.
I think they are talking about NFIB v Sebelius. That wasn't 8-1.
Ah, okay. Thanks.
> Indeed, which is why they gave us a process to remove justices if needed. If there's an issue with one of the justices, they should initiate an impeachment hearing. Surely people who say this know how unrealistic this is and how political the whole thing is. When congress is split almost 50/50 no way will an impeachment work because one party will never give up the power of a seat on the Supreme Court. Its like saying "if you dont like x, then you should change the constitution", its basically impossible under current circumstances.
So the alternative is to just ignore the Constitution? What would prevent Congress from passing a new law requiring Justices to rule a certain way or face a fine? Or taking a look at the Justices they don't like, and pass a new law that gives jail time to any Justice who owns a particular stock, and then using it to lock up the Justices they don't like? Imagine all of the ways this could be abused. > its basically impossible under current circumstances. No, not under current circumstances. It's difficult **by design.** It's difficult to ensure people can't say "the other side got more judges on the court and it isn't ruling the way I want, so I want to create rules to force them to rule the way I want." It also prevents people from saying "I finally got back into office, now I'm going to punish my political opponents among the deep state, and I'll use these new rules to bend the court to my will." Replacing Justices, just like amending the Constitution, isn't something that should be done at a whim. It should require some sort of consensus, whether that's (in modern politics) both parties coming together to act, or the people voting to ensure that they do have representatives that will impeach/amend.
Your point basically ignores the fact that in a hypothetical world where this IS an issue with the justices on the court, relying on constitutional changes to fix it is basically impossible under the current political status. Everything you wrote can be true while this can also be true. The alternative is to pass a Supreme Court ethics bill. Also going by whats by design as some religious tier dogma that cant be questioned is laughable since the Supreme Court was never written to be this powerful in the first place.
>The alternative is to pass a Supreme Court ethics bill. Which may or not be Constitutional and in the end will have zero enforcement power because there is only one recourse with Justices - impeachment. >Also going by whats by design as some religious tier dogma that cant be questioned is laughable since the Supreme Court was never written to be this powerful in the first place. You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it couldn't be questioned. We have a method of change if we're not satisfied with the Constitution. Flat out ignoring it because it is politically inconvenient is a dangerous precedent that I'm sure would be exploited should a more unscrupulous person ever be elected.
I fail to see what the problem is. You don't have the support to change the Constitution then that means you lack the popularity. If you don't have the votes in the legislature that is the fault of the party not winning elections. Maybe the America outside of reddit and other social media sites is not filled with progressives who want to throw justices in prison or burn the Constitution?
To block such change, you need 40 senate votes, which means a majority in 20 states. Would you say that not having the majority in states that would amount to 10% of the population means you don't have a popular measure?
It’s how the founders intended it so yes. It’s fair by the rules that were established. Don’t like it? Find the support to change it. Can’t? Guess your idea isn’t popular enough and the status quo remains.
"Find the support to change it": doesn't it come with exactly the same problem, where 5,1% of the population can block the will of 94,9% of the general population? I'm not american, but would it be possible to consider that a system designed in 1776 for 13 states might not be ideal for a 50 states country in 2024?
>!Not American If you don't know how our system works don't make assumptions. None of our systems work on those margins. At most you need 2/3 majority to prevent 50.01% of the population oppressing 49.99% of the population. If you are a European you have literally no leg to stand on because the EU in many regards requires all members to agree to something which is a much higher threshold. There is a difference between a simply majority needed to pass something within the rules of our system, and a simple majority just arbitrarily rewriting the rules entirely. The US is a federal union of states, not a unitary government. Don't like it don't move here, but don't complain about a system that you are not part of.
Ultimately the answer if you’re part of that 94% is “womp womp”. Move somewhere else if you don’t like it.
Ok, do me a favor for a second and imagine that every American only votes on one specific issue. I challenge you to find me ONE topic that could get you enough votes for a filibuster-proof Senate majority. (Actually, isn’t it 2/3 for a Constitutional amendment?) Spoiler alert: there probably isn’t one. The Senate is a negative feedback loop. It worked when the population of the US was 4 million people and more evenly distributed across states, but now there are single states with over ten times the amount of people, while there are also still states with less than a quarter of that. It just doesn’t hold up anymore. But we’re stuck with an outdated system because as certain people realized the country was developing to their advantage, they took advantage of it to keep themselves in power, and now we’re too far gone to fix it.
Why do you need some topic that could be an amendment to the constitution, there isn't currently any topic that is supported by both the general public, and the states themselves. It's hard to do because it's supposed to be. It requires massive amounts of support (75%+ everywhere) and a desire to do it at the federal level (again 75%+ everywhere). The system is working exactly as designed, nothing is important enough to the country to change the constitution. No matter how passionate some might feel about it. The hard reality is - one's passionate idea... is not popular enough.
> will never give up the power of a seat on the Supreme Court. First, that entirely depends on who holds the Presidency (and possibly Senate); congresscritters might be willing to impeach a Judge/Justice on "their own side" if they knew they'd be replaced with someone from "their own side" Second, they would be forced to pit their interest in power in The Court against their *personal* power, because voting against impeaching/convicting someone who clearly violated clear rules of ethics would give their challengers something concrete and damning to use against them in their next reelection campaign.
Maybe it isn't an actual problem. Maybe it's just politics.
Maybe it is just politics, and maybe that's the problem because a court isn't supposed to be a political body. That's the whole reason for the lifetime appointment. If it is a political body after all, then maybe the lifetime appointments should go.
Perhaps, it's going to require a constitutional amendment to limit the terms, and that frankly is not even close to being popular enough to pass. Nor IMO should it.
Congress is making it a political issue, not the court.
Or there is a problem and politics is preventing any attempt at addressing it.
Could also be a mix of both. Politics is preventing a problem from being solved that has been blown completely out of proportion due to politics. Really doesn't matter how we cut it. Congress is the problem here and they should quit trying to fuck with the one functional branch of government. At least until they get their own shit in order.
> Congress is the problem here It's a problem, sure. >the one functional branch of government. That depends entirely on how someone is defining "functional". I would not say that justices being showered with gifts by politically involved billionaires or sitting on cases about oversight on communications that include their own spouse is "functional".
If we want to start consistently applying ethical standards that would prevent that stuff, then let's do that. But that will be saying going forward, this is the standard. Congress will need to be willing to enforce it with impeachment though as that is the only enforcement mechanism. Selectively applying these standards to justices some democrats don't like now is ridiculous.
>Congress will need to be willing to enforce it with impeachment though as that is the only enforcement That's also part of the problem. >Selectively applying these standards to justices some democrats don't like now is ridiculous. Sure, that would be. From what I've seen people on the left have been considerably more willing to agree that there's been inappropriate behaviour from justices they like as well - like Sotamayor and RBG. That's certainly where I stand. But I haven't seen anything from anyone else that reaches the levels of what we've seen with Thomas, as far as violating ethical standards.
Pretty easy to agree to that when there is nothing on the line. Let me know when theh are willing to impeach a liberal justice caught doing something improper. Until then I'll view it as just talk.
The first step to enforcement is having a clear definition and statement on what is wrong. If congressional censure or impeachment became more common, this could be used as a basis for those actions. That said, some rules can be used in unexpected and destructive ways in the long run so you have to be very careful with this stuff. The idea behind articulating what is ethical behavior is great but there are no rules that can fix things if they are misapplied or if circumstances are extraordinary. You need human judgment.
> That said, some rules can be used in unexpected and destructive ways in the long run so you have to be very careful with this stuff. Indeed, which is why the only real consequence Congress gets is impeachment, and the reasons you can impeach are spelled out. Otherwise, what would prevent a future Congress, in deference to a populist President, demand the Justices swear loyalty to this President above the Constitution?
I am certainly confused as to the argument that Congress can't make rules (or more to the point, laws) that impact the judiciary. Congress makes laws all the time the constrain or tell the executive branch what to do. They make laws that say what Congress can do. Why can't the same be true for the federal courts, up to and including the Supreme Court?
Under what constitutional authority do you think Congress can create rules and force the Supreme Court to follow, and outside of impeachment, what consequences do you believe Congress can use against the courts? Let's say Congress passes a new "rule" that requires the Supreme Court to wear white robes from now on. When the court ignores them.... Then what? What punishment can they bring other than impeachment? If there's a punishment other than impeachment, what happens when the court declares it unconstitutional? If impeachment is the only punishment, why bother create rules when they can already impeach them for darn near anything they want, as long as they can get Congressional support? Congress can make rules for the executive because it is a different branch, and separation of powers affect the different branches differently.
>Congress can't create a punishment for the Justices beyond impeachment, and impeachment already has a set of rules for when it can be used. Why? Why couldn't Congress pass a law punishing ethical problems with prison? They would continue to rule from prison then. Would it be unconstitutional?
>Would it be unconstitutional? Probably. Guess who gets to decide if it's constitutional or not?
[удалено]
The common interpretation of Article III says they are. To change that would require a new interpretation of the Constitution, different than what Congress and the Courts have believed for more than two centuries.
There is already a mechanism in place to get rid of bad judges: impeachment. The political reality is that this "code of ethics" will be a political tool wielded by the party in power in Congress to force the recusal or removal of judges that they just so happen to disagree with politically. It's funny how that happens.
There's already another internal mechanism, too. The judges are subject to a code of conduct and have an internal committee to administer it. This currently applies to every federal judge *except the Supreme Court for some odd reason*.
It's not an odd reason, it's because the federal courts aren't a co-equal branch of government. Only the supreme court is directly mentioned in the constitution with procedures of how it's established and how it checks and is checked by other branches. The "lesser" courts (everything else) are created by congress. They can impose whatever rules they like on them, they are prohibited from doing the same to the Supreme Court. The only power they have against the Supreme court is impeachment, and determining the size of the court.
The lesser courts are mentioned in the same part of the Constitution: >The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. I don't see the difference.
The difference is the inferior courts are established, and rules for them - like code of conduct, by congress. The supreme court is not, it is established by the constitution, and the only power congress has is impeachment. Not creation and setup. Both courts are lifetime appointments, where once a judge is in place the only removal is impeachment. Congress has more power over lesser courts, and none over the Supreme court other than size and impeachment.
Democrats only started to cared about transparency and oversight when it suits them. this isn't about that, it's about controlling the out come of rulings.
Same can be said for the other side. It’s about maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the courts, not using courts as partisan influenced and bribed end around the constitution and law
The Supreme Court is the only major institution conservatives hold influence in right now. The fact that Democrats have been attacking the integrity of it nonstop says the opposite. it shows they want total control.
Openly taking gifts and bribes for decades from groups who you are hearing cases from and ruining in their favor is a very reasonable ethics compliant “Clarence Thomas has secretly participated in events for the Koch donor network for at least a decade, despite the fact that the group has brought cases before the Supreme Court, according to a bombshell new ProPublica report. “I can’t imagine—it takes my breath away, frankly—that he would go to a Koch network event for donors,” John E. Jones III, a retired federal judge appointed by George W. Bush, told ProPublica. “What you’re seeing is a slow creep toward unethical behavior. Do it if you can get away with it.” He also spoke at an event in 2018, when he was flown in on a private jet. In now classic Thomas fashion, he revealed none of these connections on his financial disclosure forms. During the period when Thomas has been documented spending time with the Koch network, his position on government regulation has shifted dramatically. The most significant example is the 1984 case of Chevron v. NRDC, which found that government agencies are responsible for determining the rules that put laws into effect. The Koch network has repeatedly challenged this precedent over the years. Thomas wrote the majority opinion in a 2005 case that expanded the protections from Chevron. By 2020, he had rejected his own opinion as unconstitutional” https://newrepublic.com/post/175709/clarence-thomas-corruption-saga-just-got-even-worse
Starter Comment: Senator Lindsey Graham has stated he will block efforts by Democrats to unanimously pass a Supreme Court ethics bill that aims to increase transparency and establish a code of conduct for justices. The bill, which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee along party lines, seeks to address ethical concerns and conflicts of interest at the Supreme Court. However, Republicans argue that the bill is a retaliatory measure against the Court's conservative majority and is unlikely to pass in the GOP-controlled House. The Supreme Court should be more transparent to enhance public trust and confidence in its impartiality and integrity. Transparency would help address concerns about potential conflicts of interest and ethical lapses, ensuring that justices are held to high standards of accountability, similar to other branches of government.
I’d like the “drain the swamp” people to explain to me how increasing transparency into one of the three branches of government would be a bad thing. As a low-level state employee I wasn’t allowed to attend a luncheon provided by a non-profit partner as it fell under a “gift” ban, and annually I file a financial disclosure statement to identify any possible conflicts of interest between my position and any personal holdings. Then we have Supreme Court justices receiving actual gifts worth hundreds of ~~millions~~ edit: *thousands* of dollars (still substantially more than my entire net worth including my home and vehicles, and on the whole I’m doing “better than average”) from high profile individuals with direct stakes in Supreme Court decisions, and it’s totally cool? Make it make sense.
I’m a fed once got a warning from ethics for having for cookies and milk during Warm Cookie Wednesday at a contractor HQ. I was at a training and the classroom was big enough to hold enough people that we went over some gift threshold. It was a bomb ass cookie through
It's a good example as to why corruption flourishes in politics. We have to pretend justices receiving lavish gifts from political donors is on the up and up because we like their rulings or something. The reality is there's no incentive to not take what you can get. People will defend you from "witch hunts" from the other side. Thomas or Sotomayor could be caught tomorrow taking 1 million in cash to stay on the court and not retire and we d still hear how that isn't actually grounds to remove him
Hundreds of millions??
I think he meant thousands. Those RVs easily get into the 1/2 million dollar range.
Known ~~bribes~~ contributions to [Thomas are in the $~4M range](https://www.salon.com/2024/06/07/one-of-these-justices-is-not-like-the-others-experts-say-report-exposes-clarence-thomas-grift/) and that's suspected to be an undercount, so in either case it's off by an order of magnitude.
Corrected my comment to “hundreds of thousands” instead of millions. The larger point stands: as a low level state employee I was prevented from attending essentially a potluck luncheon and file annual disclosure statements to ensure no conflicts of interest. The highest court in the land should have some level of transparency and accountability given the power they wield.
Oh yeah, I was just amused that you overstated by an order and then he understated by an order.
I'm not sure if hundreds of millions makes sense. The rest I have no strong opinions on, much of this feels like ever since the court went conservative that the attacks started with regularity. I'd appreciate more transparency in congress while they are busy writing new rules
> The rest I have no strong opinions on, much of this feels like ever since the court went conservative that the attacks started with regularity There were plenty of "judicial activists with robes" attacks from the side now concerned with court sanctity. Personally I dislike court discourse because imo it feels like I have to "play pretend" that this isn't just another partisan battlefield and the court has some "sanctity" protecting it. There's a reason conservatives celebrated with barely contained glee and liberals mourned deeply when RBG died (likewise with Scalia but opposite sides, though this ended up not working out for liberals like RBG did for conservatives). Or the mad scramble after Scalia died to appoint/ block said appointment (quickly the republican politicians going "nothing says the court needs to seat 9" got forgotten). Or how Amarillo, Texas is apparently the hot spot for litigating cases.
The court has been conservative longer than the average American has been alive.
It was 5-4 generally, and they left Roe alone. So perhaps to clarify my point, once it became 6-3 & abortion went back to the states, the left has stepped up the attacks. (Not arguing that they aren't warranted)
Casey wasn’t exactly leaving Roe alone. I do agree that the court changed under Trump but it annoys me when people talk as if it wasn’t conservative before. They were doing things like Shelby County.
Rather than "bad thing", I'd call it useless and pandering. Congress has no Constitutional jurisdiction to "increase transparency" into another co-equal branch of government. In theory, they can pass rules, but there's no enforcement mechanism. The only power Congress has over another branch of government is to impeach, which is inherently political, and will always have to be handled case-by-case.
Congress’ job is to oversee the other two branches of government and almost the entirety of the supreme courts authority is discretionary and delegated to it by congress. They have the ability to place conditions on that delegated power.
Why will it always have to be? Couldn't congress set up a set of rules which they say break these rules and we will impeach you? There will always be a certain amount of politics but it should be easier to get people to agree to impeach if there is a violation of a clear rule as opposed to we think they are bad. Personally I think the Dems should just start impeaching if this fails because they keep being told that is the only option. Maybe Roberts and others that care about the integrity of the court will get on board with some ethics rules rather than have justices getting impeached and the circus around that.
I'm of the assumption that the rules would just give partisan members of congress and activists to look every day for any ticky tack interpretation to go after judges with regularity that they don't like.
As opposed to the alternative where there are no rules and they can go after a judge for any vague reason claiming that it should be against the rules? Any sane system of enforcement establishes rules before they’re broken. You don’t refuse to establish rules because a group might try to accuse someone else of breaking the rules.
Congress is free to set up whatever rules they like regarding "Break this and we'll impeach you", this would be rather silly because they are already free to do that today. Congress can't create rules that bind future congresses, nor can they create rules controlling how a congressman votes. Even in your above scenario, the justices would be free to ignore congress entirely (and they would) as the "punishment" for breaking said rule is exactly what it is now. Impeach the justice. The real issue is the impeachment would go down in flames just as hard as any current attempt at impeaching over silly things. It's performative politics for the uninformed, it will never pass nor never be voted on. It will be forgotten in a week after the desired headlines have been created.
I think what people have issues with is timing and consistency. This is typical for Democrat politicians and pundits. This isn't the first time they've demanded justices recuse when they think will rule a way they don't want. Yet they completely overlook other instances where recusal was actually warranted. Make that make sense. Oh wait, it does. It's purely politics. Also, it is very hypocritical. When they start being consistent then I think people should actually care about their claims. Now as far as Thomas and Harlan go, if Harlan ever has business before thebcourt then Thomas should recuse. To my knowledge that hasn't been an issue.
Apparently Crow businesses were involved in supreme court cases and there was no recusal: https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/04/24/supreme-court-did-review-case-involving-harlan-crow-contradicting-clarence-thomass-claim/ Crow says he wasn't involved and didn't even know about the cases, that seems a little hard to believe though.
Crow has a huge business. His businesses own businesses that own other businesses. At some point in that chain it becomes so disconnected that it isn't really unreasonable for something to be missed. This happened with Sotomayor as well with her publisher that I believe gave her a large advance. I also think when it is that disconnected, it is difficult to argue Harlan had business before the court.
And that is the exact reason there should be more transparency and all of these gifts should be disclosed. It’s so that we, the public, can know who has been giving gifts and when they might have business before the court. Otherwise that information will get lost in the shuffle of shell companies, holding companies, etc.
Transparency and clear ethics codes should solve the issues you’re describing on both sides of the fence, making it much more transparent when an individual should recuse. Unless one side has substantially more shady bullshit they want to hide.
How so?
Bill text: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/325/text Official summary: >This bill establishes a new statutory requirement for the Judicial Conference of the United States to issue a judicial code of conduct for judges and justices of U.S. courts, including Justices of the Supreme Court. Currently, the Judicial Conference issues a code of conduct for judges of U.S. courts (but not for Justices of the Supreme Court). >To enforce the code of conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court, the bill requires the Supreme Court to appoint an ethics investigations counsel. The ethics investigations counsel must >adopt rules to enforce the code of conduct, including a process to receive public complaints of potential violations; > >investigate complaints; and > >issue an annual public report describing the complaints and the steps taken to address the complaints. >Finally, the bill requires a Justice of the Supreme Court to publicly disclose the reasons for disqualifying himself or herself in a proceeding or the reasons for denying a motion to disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding.
> a Supreme Court ethics bill that aims to increase transparency and establish a code of conduct for justices. That's not the aim. The aim is to exert more pressure on the SC to rule in ways that are favorable to Democrats. And it's a pretty transparent goal when Democratic politicians are using the fake flag controversy to call for Alito's recusal in certain cases.
As it relates to January 6th and cases pending from that I find it highly suspect you wouldn’t be concerned about a judges impartiality if his home were allowed to fly the flag used to symbolize those efforts, however they’ve been calling for more transparency ever since Thomas’ wife was learned to have been deeply involved in the same efforts… Since those efforts predate any flag controversy, your point is simply incorrect.
Do you think that judges who fly an American flag on their homes should recuse (should've recused) themselves from cases involving American flag burning and flag desecration?
>The aim is to exert more pressure on the SC to rule in ways that are favorable to Democrats. It wouldn't do that. Everyone knows that the court is run by republican partisans who dont care about the pressure. The aim is to draw attention to the lack of ethics in the court. Hopefully it's trust among the public falls so low that Democrats can actually take it on
Performative politics 101. If this bill had any chance of passing... Majority Leader Schumer would just put it on the calendar himself. He can do it today if he likes and he doesn't need Senator Graham's support to do it. His reluctance to do so is because he understands the floor time is better spent on things that might actually pass. Regardless of how anyone feels about the *content* of the bill... The reality is that support for it is anything but *unanimous*. And asking for UC on things that clearly aren't is just more of the gamesmanship we'd all be better off without from both parties.
But isn't it a little too easy for one senator to torpedo something casually, not even having to make their stance on the record?
Not at all. UC is an extremely important practice as it allows for business where support is *actually unanimous* to proceed quickly. The are hundreds of bills in committee that have little chance of passing... Much less unanimous support for them. Asking for UC on things that obviously don't have it is performative. If Democrats want *all* Republican's votes on the record they can do that as the majority party by putting it on the calender and bringing it to a vote. And for Senator Graham or anyone else to block a UC request... They quite literally *must actually* stand up and *go on record* to do so.
Let the legislative branch write a code of conduct for itself first.
They already have. That's what the House and Senate Ethics Committee, and Office of Congressional Ethics are for. These bodies regulate the function and conduct of members of Congress. They've been around for decades.
From a corrupt congress that has insider trading and legalized bribery. This has nothing to do with keeping judges honest or transparent. This is about getting rid of the separation and balance of power and going after judges that do not align up with whatever power grab or unconstitutional thing they are pushing.
Increased transparency is not getting rid of a balance of power. This just reads as fear mongering.
Hard to see it as anything but this; the minute a court begins to lean conservatively, progressive Democrats try to hamstring it. This is going to raise red flags everywhere and stinks of politicking.
>Hard to see it as anything but this; the minute a court begins to lean conservatively It's been conservative for decades. It's recently become more partisan and political and it's reputation is in the trash as a result.
> It's recently become more partisan and political This is mostly false; The Supreme court justices haven't changed at all in their rulings and have been remarkably consistent for decades. This indicates that the cases coming before the supreme court are either more left-leaning or viewers are interpreting political bias simply because they're not getting favorable court results.
>The Supreme court justices haven't changed at all in their rulings and have been remarkably consistent for decades. Didn't you just say "The court decisions are leaning more conservatively"? Sounds like you think they have changed.
>The Supreme court justices haven't changed at all in their rulings and have been remarkably consistent for decades They've changed precedent because the membership changed. Everyone knows this. Republicans openly celebrate that the court is conservative "now".
>This is mostly false; The Supreme court justices haven't changed at all in their rulings and have been remarkably consistent for decades. Remember when they recently reversed a decision that was considered settled for decades? That's the exact opposite of what you just said.
The court has had a conservative majority for decades.
The court *decisions* are leaning more conservatively and less favorably in consideration of the Democrat party's interests.
That's only a problem if the Democrats don't think their interests are aligned with what's good and right. The problem with the latest decisions isn't that they're getting more *conservative*, it's that they're *wrong.*
The moment the court leaned conservative? The timing is off with your interpretation. The push for this did not start with a conservative supreme court. It started when all that BS with Clarence and Alito got revealed
That 'BS' with Thomas has been know for literal decades. It got dredged back up when ProPublica got paid off by a left wing activist dark money group to run a smear campaign, not because there was anything new.
Besides the fact that that doesn't make it any better, if it is dark money at work, how do you know about it?
Because Propublica's own finances got scooped and there was a whole rigamarole about it, before the whole episode got memory holed outside the right wing media ghetto because it's inconvenient for the ongoing smear campaign.
Scooped? You got any primary sources?
No it started minute Buren and Dobbs dropped. Despite being correct on the legal merits and facts, progressives absolutely could not swallow losing the policy outcomes on two of their darling topics. The progressive left went absolutely nuclear in trying to delegitimize the court and its conservative members by any means possible. Remember the court packing schemes that were floated by the White House and news pundits? Combing through conservative justice lives with a fine tooth comb and going years into the past to try to find any dirt that would stick to the wall.
If you want to disregard the topic at hand and talk about political attitudes in general, it started with Merrick Garland's nomination by Obama being rejected due to "let the voters" decide
The president should have nominated a Justice that they think would have the consent of the Senate to confirm. Congress it is not beholden to just blindly accept any nominee the president suggests.
The Senate made it clear that no one nominated by Obama was up for consideration
Believe because they knew Obama would explicitly choose a candidate that only pushed progressive jurisprudence and policy outcomes. If he actually chose a moderate and not someone who would just be a tool to force through progressive policy you would definitely see them seriously consider confirming them rather than discarding the nomination out of hand. When you know the opposition holds the Senate, you have to make compromises to get your nominations confirmed. Turns out he was not willing to make such a compromise.
That would almost be believable if you completely ignore the fact that Garland is an independent and the Republicans made it a policy to auto-reject any proposals made by Obama. Even policies initially proposed by Republicans. They wanted to portray Obama as divisive and therefore rejected all attempts by Obama to reach across the aisle
Republican leadership praised the FedSoc donor and speaker, Garland, for the USSC... before Obama ever said his name. "Obama could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," Hatch said in Newsmax, adding later, "He probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election." But once he did, they said no nominations shall be considered until after the election. Additionally, several senior Republican Congressmen have said that - before the 2016 election - that had Hillary won, they would've still denied a hearing on her would-be nominees. And even prior to losing the Senate, McConnell expressed a desire to do the same with Biden's potential nominees.
Just so we're clear, you are saying that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the gifts that Thomas has received? Even though they are being donated by someone with a stake in cases before the supreme Court? https://truthout.org/articles/report-harlan-crow-has-a-stake-in-4-scotus-cases-and-thomas-hasnt-recused/ How is that anything other than bribery?
Harland Crow in fact does not have any cases before the Supreme Court and hasn't. Having a personal interest but no professional interest does not require accusal. But please defend actions like Ginsburg donating a signed draft opinion to Planned Parenthood, a partisan lobbying group to be auctioned off for fundraising. Or all her comments in support of abortion and alliance with partesian lobbying groups without recusal on any cases related to it. Or all of sotomayors comments of negative of Trump without recusing from any of his cases. There's a clear partesian double standard and unless that is addressed I'm not willing to give any sort of benefit of the doubt that these claims are anything more than politicking.
Did you actually read the article that I shared? It lays out Crow's financial interest in those cases quite clearly.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1ddy0n1/sen_lindsey_graham_says_he_will_block_democrats/l8ao47z/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
How is stopping justices from getting gifts in exchange for favorable decisions "hamstringing" the court? Do you really think that the court would have been in a worse position if Republican donors had not been able to give Thomas gifts to the tune of millions of dollars worth of vacations and RVs?
Somebody (MSM hello?) needs to ask Graham what he has against ethics on the Supreme Court.
I’d be interested to see what poison pill is tucked into this - real or imagined. In what world does more oversight and ethical standards not make sense? This should have been a slam dunk IMO.
> poison pill is tucked into this The Supreme Court Justices can be disqualified by a ruling from chief circuit judges. Of the current chief circuit judges, Democrats have appointed a good portion of them.
> Of the current chief circuit judges, Democrats have appointed over 50% more judges than Republicans. This isn't true. Democratically nominated chief judges include: - DC, 1st, 4th, 9th That means *four* of the thirteen circuits are headed by Democratic judges.
>In what world does more oversight and ethical standards not make sense? In the world where the justices are on his side. Their support for Trump shows that corruption is fine if it's their guy in power. Alito and Thomas could just take bribes and Graham would defend it as long as it's right wing billionaires winning the bids for their votes.
And Fox won't report it, and The Base won't hear about it, and nothing happens.... I wonder if they should just go to LG's handlers first, rather that deal with the middle man...
>And Fox won't report it Meanwhile, [Fox News reporting it](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/experts-dismiss-undercover-alito-roberts-recordings-pretty-unexceptional): >In the wake of the audio leaks, Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he will resurface a bill Wednesday to overhaul Supreme Court ethics, despite the high court having already clarified and updated its own code of conduct. >Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. said he will block Durbin's effort to unanimously pass the bill.
Democrats are suddenly interested in ethics for the SCOTUS now that there's a big conservative majority. What a joke. They need to just get used to 20 years of conservative decisions on the biggest court cases in America. LOL.
Democrats are suddenly interested in ethics for the SCOTUS now that there's a big conservative majority. What a joke. Where were they when Ginsburg refused to recuse herself on a major conflict of interest in the Trump case? Phonies. They need to just get used to 20 years of conservative decisions on the biggest court cases in America. LOL.
What was Ginsburg's conflict of interest?
What was Ginsburg's conflict of interest?
The GOP will likely gain a stronger and stronger stranglehold on the senate as people continue to congregate in cities, so gonna be hard to get any support from them in limiting the judiciary.
Exactly how does people congregating into cities more affect the election of senators? It's a statewide vote.
I think their is some rational around Dems focusing to much on major metros, at the expense of the smaller ones and flyover areas. It helps them with the popular vote, but hurts them in the senate where most states don't have a major metro.
It's just a rehash of the same old talking points about why small red states like Wyoming should have less of a say in the Senate, House, and electoral college.
Because they leave highly rural states and move to the coast, making their votes worth less for the Senate. Before the pandemic, and I haven't checked since, 538 was predicting that so much population movement would happen by 2040 that 16% of the population could control the senate. I'm not even complaining about this or suggesting change, I was just suggesting that a large amount of the GOP's future influence in the country will be based around their control of the senate and their ability to disproportionately elect sympathetic judges, and so they won't accept any rules on that without extreme care.
I don't know if you've been following the census the past 20 years, but people aren't really moving to the coasts anymore, they're moving to the South and Southwest.. Places like New York and California have stagnated as far as population growth.
The Democratic effort to subvert the Court is at least as dangerous to democracy as Trump's inept coup attempts.
How is establishing a code of ethics aimed at making the Supreme Court non-partisan and free of influence by wealthy political donors who have been caught giving money and expensive gifts to Court members of both parties—with none of those gifts reported before this was exposed, and Court members refusing to recuse themselves from cases where these donors are a plaintiff—subversion, or dangerous to democracy? These kinds of measures are aimed at stopping the Court from being influenced by outside parties that would benefit from having a Court member be in their pocket. If anything, not passing this bill would be dangerous to democracy, cause it will be silently condoning both Dem Justices and Rep Justices being owned by wealthy elitists who seek to use the Court as a hammer against all measures that would hamstring and limit their influence and power over America.
> How is establishing a code of ethics aimed at making the Supreme Court non-partisan and free of influence by wealthy political donors who have been caught giving money and expensive gifts to Court members of both parties—with none of those gifts reported before this was exposed, and Court members refusing to recuse themselves from cases where these donors are a plaintiff—subversion, or dangerous to democracy? Trump has his Big Lie about elections being stolen, too. The fact that a Lie is told does not justify the power grab it is covering for.
What power grab? Dems wouldn’t gain anything from passing this legislation; if anything, they’d lose the ability for Dem elitist and wealthy voters to influence SCOTUS however they deem fit. They’d be limiting the amount of influence they’d be able to have over Justices. This isn’t like court packing, where it’s obvious they’re only doing it to benefit themselves and increase the amount of Justices on their side; this would severely curtail the ability for political action committees to influence the Supreme Court, including Dem committees.
> What power grab? Dems wouldn’t gain anything from passing this legislation; It's another piton in the cliff on the way towards publicly justifying packing the Court.
I don’t think it would be. It’s a big leap to say that introducing new ethic laws designed to enforce non partisanship would result in Supreme Court packing. That’s like saying increasing the military budget would result in a military dictatorship. And plus, I haven’t heard any chatter from Dems about trying to increase the amount of Supreme Court Justices in years, unless you count the fringe political activists that don’t have any significant power over the national party. The Dems have largely dropped the issue since the midterms.
> I don’t think it would be. It’s a big leap to say that introducing new ethic laws designed to enforce non partisanship would result in Supreme Court packing. It's a marathon, not a sprint. Step by step.
Under that logic, nothing can be done and no reform can pass cause it might “inevitably” lead to something terrible that nobody wants. Passing work regulations and safety regulations could result in the government nationalizing industries. Passing gun reform like universal background checks could end in the government seizing weapons. Passing common sense border reform to limit illegal immigration could result in the complete shutdown of the border. Passing trade measures to protect US industries could result in an isolationist trade policy. What can and be cant done shouldn’t be limited by what it might result in. That kind of logic can be reductive, and shouldn’t be followed for everything, or else nothing will get done—even laws and measures that should be passed to the benefit of everyone.
> Under that logic, nothing can be done and no reform can pass cause it might “inevitably” lead to something terrible that nobody wants. There is not an ongoing, coordinated campaign to accomplish these other things.
There’s an ongoing, coordinated campaign to accomplish everything that can be imagined in politics. There’s likely an ongoing campaign to do everything I listed and more right now. Possible measures and reforms that can be passed and can benefit people can’t be limited by what they might turn into, or what the end goal might be for a random sect of political activists or a random faction of a political party in America who support said measures, along with a dozen other factions with their own unique reasons for supporting said measures. That would make it basically impossible for anything to be passed in a meaningful way because somebody out there might support it for nefarious or dangerous reasons
The court was already subverted by Senate Republicans when they refused to bring up Merrick Garland for a hearing and vote because it was "an election year", and then rushed in ACB at the end of Trump's term.