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.
Republicans oppose it because that what they do. Chuck could say that it was sunny outside and Lindsay would make a show of bring an umbrella just out of spite.
In an environment like this, when very little can actually get done, sometimes activity like this is done to set the stage for the next thing. Democrats will campaign on this to sell voters on the idea that the Supreme Court is out of touch and unaccountable, and Republicans are standing in the way of changes. And if the Democrats win majorities in both houses in this election, I fully expect them to nuke the filibuster to pack the court.
My preferred method would be to slam in expansion to 13 on Day 1, effective in a years’ time. And then after signing it, Biden can go to Republicans and say “You have a choice: you can work with us to reform the court via amendment: institute ethics requirements, term limits, privledged status for appointments in the Senate, and efforts to make the Court less of a political football and more accountable. Or, you can leave things as they are, I will appoint 4 young judges to lifetime appointments and you can gamble on having both the Presidency and Senate control to appoint any more.”
Because you know that if the Presidency and Senate are controlled by different parties from now on, the Senate Leader will invoke the “McConnell Rule” to ignore the appointment entirely. In fact, this can be used as a justification to go to 13, because Democrats can argue that the Court will often have vacancies, because the Senate Majority leader has a permanent veto on filling the seat.
Democrats won’t even talk 13, they don’t have the gumption. “Oh, but the optics!” I don’t give a damn about optics anymore. One side is fighting as low down as they can go, while the other is like, “Let’s work together and not offend anyone.”
Look, I loved Obama, but this high-road crap has to end.
It’s like a boxing match where the republicans pull a knife out of their glove before the round starts and the democrats just pat themselves on the back while congratulating themselves on the clean match they’re about to have.
TO HELL WITH PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE! 🤣
Can we get you on a committee or something? Thanks for that perspective.
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.
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.
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.
An amendment would require ratification from 3/4 of the state legislatures, an amendment is not going to pass. The US Constitution explicitly gives the Congress the power to “organize the court” in Article 3, it is incontovertable that the Congress has the power to add Justices and impose ethical requirements on the judiciary. Congress has added Justices before and currently imposes ethical requirements on the lower courts.
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.
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?