Last October, amid a series of ethical controversies plaguing the high court, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett granted that it would be a “good idea” for the institution to adopt a code of ethics. Justice Elena Kagan done similar comments a month before.
The good news for reformers was that the Supreme Court announced in November that it was formally adopting a new code of conduct, which included provisions regarding when judges should recuse themselves and what types of outside activities they could engage in. the rules it wasn’t much.
There was no enforcement mechanism—judges adopted a model in which they were responsible for policing themselves—and the rules fell short of the ethical standards that other federal judges are expected to meet. In fact, the new code really just reformulated the judges’ previous statements on ethics and presented them in a new document.
Unhappy with the fig leaf, Senate Democrats advanced legislation called the Supreme Court Ethics, Revocation, and Transparency Act (SCERT Act), which is relatively modest in scope. As NBC News reported, the bill “would give the court 180 days to adopt and publish a code of conduct allowing the public to file ethics complaints that would then be reviewed by a randomly selected panel of trial judges. It would also establish new rules for disclosing gifts and travel.”
Senate Republicans balked at such reforms last year, and that opposition has not changed. NBC News reported:
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham swore in advance to derail the measure, and he did exactly that. Although it only took one opponent to oppose the unanimous consent request, the South Carolinian was joined by some of his Republican colleagues, including Senators John Kennedy of Louisiana and Mike Lee of Utah.
The effort came a few days later an audio recording Intensified ethical questions surrounding Justice Samuel Alito, and less than a week later Judge Clarence Thomas luxury travel announced he accepted from the Republican megadonor.
However, no one was surprised by the events on the Senate floor. In fact, everyone involved in the process realized long ago that the legislative prospects for reforms of the Supreme Court actually do not exist: to advance a bill in the Senate in the usual way would require 60 votes – a fanciful idea in a chamber where Members of the Republican Party’s “moderate” wing are an endangered species — and even if those votes were to somehow materialize, the Republican-led House would ignore the bill.
But Senate Democrats apparently feel compelled to try to keep the issue alive while helping to prove to the public how little Republican lawmakers care about improving the integrity of the high court.
This article was originally published in MSNBC.com
