Senate Panel Approves Supreme Court Ethics Bill With Dim Prospects
www.nytimes.com
Republicans accused Democrats of trying to undermine the court with the measure and vowed to block it from advancing in the Senate, making it highly unlikely to become law.

Although I agree with this bill, the NYT calling it “strict new ethics rules” is a bit much. Reading the requirements in the bill itself, it struck me as legislating that SCOTUS justices do the bare ethical minimum required of most every other judge - in other words, it’s the type of bill that shows up when an organization demonstrates that it is incapable of self-policing.

What’s shocking is 100% opposition by Republicans to a bill requiring a Justice to recuse if a close family member receives a large gift from a litigant - literally, that’s in the bill.

How is this controversial? Senator Graham says why - requiring the court to act ethically will “destroy” the court. He’s saying, we don’t care if justices are ethical so long as they’re partisan.

Congress needs to step up here.

  • @profdc9
    4•1 year ago

    I think the republicans would accept Supreme Court reform because they would count on the Supreme Court justices to declare the reforms unconstitutional citing separation of powers. I just don’t see any option besides packing the court.

    • @dhork
      6•1 year ago

      If an amendment is passed, that settles the matter permanently. You can’t call something unconstitutional if it’s in the plain text.

      Conservative states would never sign on to an amendment on their own, that’s why you couple it with packing the court. Not passing the amendment means any new justices get the same lifetime appointments the current ones enjoy.

      Republicans like getting their way by manufacturing deadlines like the dumb debt ceiling thing. Maybe Democrats should give them a taste of their own medicine.

      • @chinpokomon
        3•1 year ago

        It should put the question to bed, but there are plenty of examples where something in the Constitution needs to be interpreted for intent, by the SCOTUS.