I’ll be voting against the partisan Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act before us today. This bill is not about oversight or accountability – it’s about harassing and intimidating the Court.
Over the past several years, the far left has mounted an unprecedented assault against the U.S. Supreme Court. They’re unhappy with the court’s conservative majority and detest a handful of its decisions. So, the left has resorted to bullying tactics.
The far left’s playbook is to attack the court, cast doubt on the legitimacy of the institution, impugn the reputation of the Justices and attempt to dictate the rules and practices of a separate branch of government.
Since 2020, we’ve seen proposals to resurrect the failed, misguided idea of “Court Packing.” This is a notion overwhelmingly rejected by the American people when it was last proposed during the New Deal Era. Nevertheless, some on the left are actively pushing bills to “Pack the Court” anyway.
In 2022, we saw the extraordinary and unethical leak of the draft Dobbs decision. This was an overt attempt to ramp up public pressure against the court to sway justices before the final decision was issued. Thankfully, these attempts failed.
But, the far left continues to deploy extreme tactics to smear the court.
Conservative justices’ home addresses were publicly posted and shared. Protesters hold weekly demonstrations outside the private homes of justices, in violation of federal statute. Justices and their families have been confronted in public, at restaurants and on vacation. This has resulted in real physical security concerns and at least one assassination attempt. Some of these justices have young children who witness these shocking acts of intimidation.
Over the past few months, the latest efforts are to manufacture claims of “conflict of interests.”
At first, there were attacks against the spouses of justices, who also happen to work in the vast legal field. However, no such claims were lodged against Justices O’Connor or Ginsburg, whose husbands were lawyers while on the bench.
Now, there is a “drip, drip” of stories attacking the travel of conservative justices. These stories conflate trips from years ago – some, decades ago – with newly updated disclosure guidelines announced in March 2023. The rule change from the Judicial Conference is related to the “personal hospitality” exception to disclosures. The judiciary took action on its own to bring clarity to what was once overly broad and poorly defined.
These stories cherry-pick travel by certain justices. They go on to raise conjecture and misrepresent the facts and fail to explain the rules then in place.
Remember, many of the events in question took place years ago, during the court’s liberal majority. Where was the outrage from the left at that time? Were they pacified by the court’s more liberal decisions? Or is this newfound “ethics” focus just political smoke and mirrors?
The answer is obvious. This is all part of the Democrats’ promise – made at the steps of the Supreme Court in 2020 – to “release the whirlwind.”
On May 2nd, the Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board wrote a great article about this ongoing political theater.
The article correctly notes that so-called “Supreme Court ethics reform” is “another front in the political campaign to de-legitimize the Supreme Court, with a goal of tarnishing its rulings and subjecting it to more political control.”
“The campaign is on full display in the press, with reporters at multiple publications suddenly searching for supposed ethics violations or conflicts of interest. [Wall Street Journal] writers have examined and debunked these reports…. This is a political project, and hyped accusations will continue to be asserted as if they are serious.”
I’d like to enter this article into the record.
The far left is now calling for purported “ethics reform” and “recusal reform” for the Supreme Court. Chief among them is this bill before us, which raises constitutional concerns.
Article 3, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution states: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court [—] and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may [—] from time to time ordain and establish.”
Unfortunately, this bill usurps the Constitution. It presents clear “separation-of-powers” issues. It also calls for various lower court judicial panels to review and rule on the actions of the “one supreme court” and its justices. So, lower courts established by Congress would be tasked with policing the Supreme Court in ways our Founders sought to avoid.
In all the hearings the Judiciary Committee has had on this topic, not one witness was able to articulate effectively how such measures would be constitutionally sound.
The SCERT Act would create a roadmap for parties to seek out newly defined “conflicts” and recusal processes. This could be abused to disqualify justices who may be unfavorable to their side, especially on high-profile cases.
This bill, as currently written, risks undermining the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in his letter to Chairman Durbin [dated April 25th], included a “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices.” This statement, undersigned by all the justices, reaffirms their commitment to upholding the integrity of the Court.
Let me emphasize again: This was signed by all sitting Justices.
I’d also like to enter this letter into the record.
This bill, if enacted, would bluntly insert politics into the Supreme Court and erode away at the “checks and balances” carefully crafted by our Founders. This legislation may needlessly force us down a road toward a constitutional crisis.
Therefore, I’m not in favor of legislation until we know whether the Supreme Court’s own actions to clarify its disclosures is sufficient.
Just like each chamber of Congress and the White House, the Supreme Court ebbs and flows across the ideological spectrum. During the 1930s, scholars have described the Supreme Court as a “conservative court.” Meanwhile, during the 1950s and ‘60s, the Warren Supreme Court was much more liberal.
Someday, this Court will shift again. But the actions being considered today are a result of a temper tantrum by the far left. The left dislikes certain, recent Supreme Court decisions and are unable to unilaterally ram their policy proposals through Congress. These efforts to hijack the Supreme Court must stop.
Chief Justice Roberts, in his concluding paragraphs of the Biden v. Nebraska opinion, cautioned against visceral rhetoric and baseless political hits against the court – which has undoubtedly come to a boil in the last several months.
Roberts notes: “[It’s] become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary…. Reasonable minds may disagree with our analysis – in fact, at least three do. We [don’t] mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement. [It’s] important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country.”
Before I yield back, I’d like to enter into the record another Wall Street Journal article from June 21st titled, “‘Ethics' and the Supreme Court’s Independence.” This article also highlights in detail some of the constitutionality, judicial independence and “balance-of-power” concerns of these legislative proposals put forth so far.
I yield.
-30-