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.

  • @soulifix
    2•1 year ago

    I fully expect them to nuke the filibuster to pack the court.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but nuking the filibuster would end up working both ways, wouldn’t it? If there’s no filibuster, then if Republicans are somehow in control, they’d get by just as much with no resistance in passing laws than if Democrats did because there’d be no opposition, right?

    If true, I am almost under the impression that no filibuster is actually a bad idea.

    • @dhork
      5•1 year ago

      Recall why the Filibuster exists in the first place: it’s a call to end debate and get on with voting. If there is majority support to pass something, why should we need a supermajority to vote on it?