Senior Senate Democrats see the annual funding bill for the Supreme Court as a way to force Supreme Court Justice John Roberts to adopt ethics reforms in the wake of controversies surrounding conservative justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
Specifically, some Democrats want to tie Supreme Court funding to the justices’ adoption of a code of ethics in funding law overseen by the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, which has jurisdiction over the high court’s budget.
“I think the court is really out of line right now, especially not even having a fact-finding process” for allegations of ethical misconduct, said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Senate Judiciary chairman. Subcommittee on Federal Courts and Taxation.
“Only nine people in the entire U.S. government do not have a case, and ironically, they are the ones who should be in charge of the legal process, so it is not a tenable position for the court to remain in, and if it takes a little bit of a push from the Committee of Appropriations, I would welcome that,” he said of adding Supreme Court ethics requirements to his annual funding bill.
Tension between Senate Democrats and conservative Supreme Court justices has risen in recent weeks amid reports that two flags associated with the Jan. 6 attempt to overturn the 2020 election results were displayed at Alito’s Virginia home and at the beach house in New Jersey.
On Monday, Rolling Stone magazine reported on a secret recording of Alito speaking at the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner, when he appeared to sympathize with the idea that Americans need to “return our country to a place of godliness” and noted the nation as one of “fundamental differences” that “cannot be compromised”.
“One side or the other will win,” he said at the event.
This will likely fuel Democrats’ perception of Alito as a partisan and re-energize attempts to rein in conservative justices, who now have a 6-3 majority.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Committee, wanted to move forward with last year’s language requiring the court to adopt an enforceable ethics regime.
Van Hollen still supports the proposal, according to sources familiar with the discussion among Senate Democrats.
The language under consideration would make some funding for the court dependent on the Supreme Court’s adoption of a set of applicable ethical standards and would not affect any funding for court security.
But the bold tactic to pressure Roberts does not currently have the support of Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who struck a deal with Senate Republicans last year to exclude controversial political pilots from the spending.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), vice chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, which is negotiating the spending deal with Murray, warned against adding Supreme Court ethics reform to her annual funding bill.
“I think doing that would compromise the independence of the judiciary,” Collins said when asked about tying court funding to ethics reform.
Senate Democratic sources say Murray wants to keep the appropriations process on track and will likely renew his agreement with Collins to keep so-called poison pills out of appropriations bills so they can pass the Senate Appropriations Committee with the same levels of bipartisan support. they had last year.
“We’re talking, we’re trying to figure out the best path forward, so we’re working on that,” she told The Hill of her negotiations with Collins.
Murray is refraining from endorsing the idea of adding Supreme Court ethics language to appropriations legislation to maintain bipartisanship in the committee.
She is a co-sponsor of the Supreme Court Ethics, Refusal, and Transparency Act, which would require the Supreme Court to adopt a binding code of conduct and create a mechanism to investigate alleged violations. The bill has more than 40 co-sponsors, but no Republicans have signed on to it so far.
Some Democrats are taking a closer look at using the appropriations process as leverage over Roberts after the chief justice rejected a request from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Whitehouse to meet with them to discuss Alito’s recuse from Trump-related matters. cases and the court’s adoption of an applicable code of conduct.
Roberts, in a letter to senators, said such a meeting “would be inadvisable” given what he cited as “concerns about the separation of powers and the importance of preserving judicial independence.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), another member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked Roberts in a recent letter to use his authority, which includes the power to assign majority opinion writing, to pressure Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves. get rid of Trump-related cases.
Senate Democrats are under increasing pressure from left-leaning groups to investigate Alito after The New York Times reported that an inverted American flag, a symbol of the “Stop the Steal” movement, was displayed at Alito’s home after the 2020 election .
More than 60 national organizations, including the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the AFL-CIO, wrote a letter to senators on Monday urging them “to use the full power of the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate and respond quickly to these latest developments in the current ethical crisis at the U.S. Supreme Court.”
The groups also called on the Senate to pass “robust judicial ethics reform legislation” and “immediately launch an investigation into the latest issues relating to Justice Alito’s behavior and issue findings regarding potential violations of the Code of Conduct for Supreme Court justices.” .
The groups also cited ProPublica reporting that Thomas received hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and hospitality from a wealthy Republican donor.
The watchdog group Fix the Court reported last week that Thomas received $4 million in gifts during his time on the court, citing ProPublica reporting.
Other signatories included the Alliance for Justice, the American Federation of Teachers, the League of Conservation Voters, the NAACP, the National Women’s Law Center and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Durbin said last week that he is not ready to subpoena Alito or Thomas — or Roberts — despite pressure from progressives.
Senate Democratic aides note that any subpoena of Supreme Court justices would need 60 votes in the Senate to be enforced, something unlikely to happen given Republican opposition.
“They don’t understand the rules of the Senate,” Durbin said of progressive groups who want him to subpoena Alito and Thomas. “Under the Senate rules to issue a subpoena, you either have to do it in a bipartisan manner or you have to have 60 votes on the Senate floor to enforce it.
“There is a limitation on the Senate side that you don’t find on the House side,” he said.
Durbin said “there are more things we are considering” but ruled out subpoenas.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
