US Senate Democrats pursue Supreme Court ethics legislation
US Senate Democrats pursue Supreme Court ethics legislation
Senate Democrats are pursuing legislation this week that would set a binding ethics code for the U.S. Supreme Court following revelations that some conservative justices have failed to disclose luxury trips and real estate transactions - a measure facing an uphill battle thanks to Republican opposit...
Senate Democrats are pursuing legislation this week that would set a binding ethics code for the U.S. Supreme Court following revelations that some conservative justices have failed to disclose luxury trips and real estate transactions - a measure facing an uphill battle thanks to Republican opposition.
So, I guess my question is, will this have any teeth? Suppose Clarence just says "fuck it" and fails to recuse himself when he should? What then? Does this law permit for real consequences, or is it just going to be an extra stern finger wagging?
87Beyond that, what's to say the court doesn't just declare it unconstitutional.
We're well past them pretending they don't legislate from the bench, they're just striking down or upholding laws that they like at this point.
63Clarence exhales profoundly letting out hooray as the 6000$ bourbon spills out his lower lip in small drops "Haha I'm in for life 😂😂😂"
Sorry I'm kind of tipsy 🥴
10
Unlikely to have legal teeth. For one, it's actually facially unconstitutional. First, the vesting clause of Article III states that the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court. It also expresses that Congress may establish other courts. There's a statutory interpretation canon, expressio unius est exclusio alterius that essentially says that if you are speaking of a set of things ("courts") and say that something applies (congressional discretion) to a specific subset ("lower courts"), it implies that the remainder of that subset ("the supreme court") is exempt (cannot be regulated by congress).
Second, there's arguably already a constitutional process for regulating the ethics of SCOTUS ("good behavior"); however, the Constitution is silent on how it's enforced and in that vacuum SCOTUS's position is likely to be that they self-regulate.
I think, however, the public spectacle of it does have value. For one, SCOTUS (and the Republicans) are very concerned with the court losing legitimacy and a genuine consensus emerging that the court ought to be overhauled- whether that's Whitehouse's bill or a packing plan. It would be great propaganda for a future election for Democrats to say "hey, stop taking bribes" to justices currently taking bribes and for the court not to agree and say "you're right, no taking bribes" but instead to say "fuck you, you can't tell us what to do but also we're not taking bribes we promise".
Whitehouse's strategy here, especially since this would never pass the House, is to offer this as ammunition to Democrats running in 2024 showcasing the corruption of the Republican party.
18That's the best question. Clarence Thomas shouldn't have been able to openly flaunt his corruption for decades, but he has. Is this just going to be more firm hand-wringing by the Dems with no enforcement mechanism whatsoever? At that point, it would be better to just recognize the court as illegitimate in the public eye as opposed to giving the false sense that it is in anyway ethical.
13It doesn't necessarily need to have teeth since the court has no enforcement mechanism when declaring something unconstitutional. Instead of putting teeth into the law itself, one could argue that if justices were found to be "unethical" it reduces the likelihood that that judges decision is unbiased and opens the door to govt just ignorimg the cases in which an unethical judge tips the scale on which side makes up the majority of the court....
Still doubt any of that happens though because Dems are the govt now
4
The courts have no way to enforce their rulings directly. Nothing is stopping Biden from ignoring them except for norms and the the real shitstorm it would cause.
11I don't know about shit storm. Student loan forgiveness was clearly within the presidential powers in the HEROES Act of 2003. Loan forgiveness is also overwhelmingly popular with the voters on both sides of the aisle. Since the SC has no teeth to enforce rulings, Biden could just wait until a month after reelection and do it anyway, with near-zero consequences. Nobody is coming for him for making them not owe $10,000, especially since the plaintiffs in the SC case were unwilling, unwitting, and could not prove any harm.
I say that under the assumption Biden wouldn't lose to another candidate, and the Democrats retain at least one of the Congressional Chambers. In this fucky timeline, who knows what the USA will look like in 2 years
7
Technically, if it does end up getting passed, it will theoretically have teeth. But then the Tribunal of Six will probably just say “it’s unconstitutional to hold us accountable”.
At that point, someone’s bound to infer something creative from the statement “supreme court justices are appointed for life” sooner or later.
My point being: if you halt any and all means of civil recourse that your citizens have, someone is going to dislike that enough that they will find a way around it that you will not like.
4It's the Democrats. Finger wagging is all they've got.
-2
Hah. Clearly this should happen, but I hope the irony of self-enriching congress lecturing others about ethics isn’t lost on anyone.
28I know it's not the point you were making, but the Senate is a different body than Congress
-15https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress
Congress is the Senate and the House of Representatives. Two chambers.
18Not...really. It's the supposed to be the more ethical, upstanding half of Congress, with the popular House of Representatives constituting the deplorable half.
So, regardless of which side of Congress is referring to, or both sides, it doesn't matter: their self-enrichment undermines their stance on ethics. It's not like Manchin, a Senator, also hasn't benefited from the largesse of billionaires.
4
Dissolve the court. Arrest Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito and Kavanaugh. Investigate everyone else, and if they took so much as a stick of gum from someone who had business before the court arrest them too. Symbolic bills dying in committee will not stop the court from being the bought & paid for dictator that we thought they were trying to put in the white house.
21I complete agree with you, but dissolving the court would probably lead to a full-on civil war
8they threaten civil war every time the waiter forgets their ranch dressing. it's time to stop letting that empty threat stop us from being a free and democratic country.
1
Seriously, the point of having 3 supposedly co-equal branches is so each has oversight. You can't let this dereliction of duty go unchallenged or we have to scrap the whole thing.
20I mean…. We have to scrap the whole thing. We all know it. Let’s stop dancing around it and start figuring out what the next thing is.
10I've been saying this for a long while. We need a new constitution at this point, and that is OK. The founders knew this, and also took time to point out that it will be ugly, just like it was for them. The shit show we have now is enough to make me lean into antinatalism, which is a stance I never could have imagined as a younger person.
5
Reminds me of this quote I came across the other day about Marbury v Madison
Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Smith Adams, September 11, 1804, "but the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."
4
The supreme Court also needs to be expanded and repaired by packing in liberal judges until the makeup of the court reflects the values of the majority of the country.
20Term limits are a great way to mitigate effects of judges. While an opposing party may control it for a time, it will end. Expansion does nothing to solve this, but may temporarily appear to. Until again, an opposing party elects judges to fill those seats you just added.
There should be term & age limits on all our representatives.
9so what happens when republicans take back the Senate and the presidency and then add like 10 conservative justices to balance out the liberal ones
8And when Republicans have control they pack it in their favor?
1They already doing it. They were doing it for years already. They will not stop doing it until there will be some ethical oversight that can actually do something
5
If the US was another country they’d call it a 3rd world mess, invade it for the oil in Alaska and bring democratic laws to it. And probably kill 100k civilians on the way.
13Be real for a sec…
100k is way too low of a number.
7The rest of the 5mil were combatants because male and over 8 years old.
3
Guys who administer constituinal law having hard time complying with the basic bar rules... Such as conflict of interest and kick backs. I thought veneer of impropriety was the the theshldhold.
Where they barred anyway? Asking for a friend
8God we are so fucking far past the point where this will matter. We need to give up the idea that we can still patch our broken governmental system with things that rely on people coming together and agreeing that some things are just bad. The right will defend anything if defending it can give them more power. This legislation would probably be used to kick a democratic judge off for "ethics violations" like giving food to the homeless somewhere that it's been made illegal before it was used to target republican judges guilty of rape, lying under oath, and bribery.
5"Sorry, we heard Judge ______ handed a bottle of water to someone in a GA election line, gotta go!"
3
Both Sides
2Swamp, anyone?
-6Ouff, seems like that word is tainted now (I assume you were using it to describe the courts corruption and not some perceived corruption on the part of Dems)
2You assumed correctly.
0
Just throwing another hissy fit like the children they are.
-26