-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, just about every week now, we learn something new and deeply troubling about the Justices serving on the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land in the United States, and their conduct outside the courtroom. From unreported luxury getaways with billionaire benefactors who have business before the Court to donor-funded teaching positions that double as all-expense-paid vacations, to a political megadonor buying a home that belongs to a Justice's relative and then allowing that relative to continue living there rent-free--we have learned all of this in just a few months.

And, last week, another troubling report: According to the Associated Press, Justice Sotomayor used her taxpayer-funded Court staff to help sell copies of her book, in particular by pressing libraries, community colleges, and other public institutions to buy additional copies of her memoir and children's book in conjunction with her speaking engagements.

Let me tell you, if I or any Member of the Senate failed to report an all-expense-paid luxury getaway or if we used our government staff to help sell books we wrote, we would be in big trouble. The same would be true for Members of the House or Cabinet officials in any Presidential administration. That is because all of us are subject to enforceable codes of conduct that prohibit us from using taxpayer funds for personal gain.

But the same, sadly, is not true for the nine Justices across the street. Unlike every other Federal official, Supreme Court Justices are not bound by a code of ethical conduct.

Let me repeat that. Unlike every other Federal official, the nine Supreme Court Justices are not bound by a code of ethical conduct.

They are the most powerful judges in the entire Nation, and yet they are not required to follow even the most basic ethical standards. It is time for that to change. The highest Court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards.

Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, will consider legislation I have joined Senator Whitehouse in introducing known as the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, or SCERT Act. Our legislation would require the Supreme Court to adopt an enforceable code of conduct. It would also add new recusal and transparency requirements to Federal law. And these requirements would apply to every Justice, no matter which President of which political party appointed them, or their ideological views notwithstanding.

I wish this legislation were unnecessary. The fact is, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, could clean up the Supreme Court's ethical challenges on his own, and for years I have encouraged him to do just that. It was more than 11 years ago--more than 11 years ago--when I first urged the Chief Justice in writing to adopt a binding code of conduct, but he didn't accept my suggestion.

And what has happened in the years since? I will tell you: Sadly, the American people's confidence in the Supreme Court has cratered. Public support for the Court is at an alltime low.

So if we are set to restore the public trust in our Nation's high Court, we must begin by enacting the legislation that I have introduced with Senator Whitehouse. I thank him for his leadership on this issue for many years. I hope every member of the Judiciary Committee, on both sides of the aisle, votes tomorrow in support of the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act.

Mr. President, I would like to address statements made earlier today on the floor by the Republican leader. It was his analysis and his comments on the bill which I have just described, which he said takes us out to the ``thinnest constitutional ice.''

The relationship of the legislative branch--Congress--and the Supreme Court is unusual. The Supreme Court is expressly created by the Constitution. Other courts are created by statute, and they become important to us in so many different ways. And the relationship between Congress and the Supreme Court is somewhat unique.

We have nine members of the Supreme Court. That is not required by the Constitution. The number of Supreme Court Justices is established by Congress, and it was established in the middle of the 19th century. It is nine today. It was other numbers before that. Congress has the power to choose the actual numbers of the Court.

And when it came to issues like televised court proceedings for the Supreme Court, there is a bipartisan bill, which I am authoring now-- cosponsoring with Senator Grassley, a Republican from Iowa--to deal with the actual conduct of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.

We also handle the annual budget. Congress passes the annual budget for the Supreme Court as well.

As you can tell, it is a relationship which is intertwined. We do not have the authority nor are we trying to exercise the authority to change or influence a judgment. That is up to the Court itself. But when it comes to the administration of the Court and the rules of administration, the Congress has played an important role.

Senator McConnell described our concern about the ethical situation in the Court as an ``uptick in pearl-clutching and hysterics.'' That colorful term belies the fact that the things that I have described here are very basic and concern Americans of all political faiths.

Senator McConnell said: ``We have been told we should be outraged that the Justices dare to buy and sell property and take vacations.'' Of course, he misses the point. If they want to buy and sell property, that is their business. But when someone else is buying and selling the property of a Justice or his relative, that is relevant for the public to know if the person buying the property has any business before the Court or any impact on the judgment of that Justice.

``It is the same old intimidation campaign by the left,'' according to Senator McConnell, to hold this hearing and consider a bill dealing with the ethics of the Supreme Court. What he conveniently ignores is the fact that the first letter I sent to the Court on this subject was 11 years ago.

The Court has changed dramatically in that period of time, but my message has remained the same, whether the Court is dominated by liberals or conservatives or something in between. That makes quite a difference in this argument.

He calls our effort ``open disdain for a body that refuses to interpret the Constitution through the lens of their party's platform.'' It is not open disdain. It is a recognition that what is going on in the Court is unsustainable.

What they have done and the conduct that has been disclosed already has raised serious questions about the ethical standards of the Court. We want to make sure that changes for the better to maintain the independence of the Court.

And still I struggle to understand the logic of those on the Republican side of the aisle when it comes to ethics in the Supreme Court. They seem to think it is partisan if we raise this issue.

It wasn't that long ago--just last year, 2022--that we considered the issue of disclosure of stock transactions. A bill was passed, a bipartisan bill cosponsored by Senators Cornyn and Coons, and it went to the Supreme Court, and they adopted it as their standard of conduct. Apparently, when it comes to those ethical considerations, cooperation between the two branches is acceptable. Why isn't it acceptable today, as we set out to do?

The first thing I did, when we initiated this subject, was to contact the Supreme Court and let them know that we were sending a letter to the Chief Justice inviting him to come testify and appear and describe the situation at the Court and how it was being handled.

He respectfully declined that invitation and responded with his own defense of the current situation. But we tried from the beginning not to make this partisan. We tried to make it respectful under the Constitution. I am sorry the Chief Justice did not accept our invitation. But we tried several different ways to engage him and the Court and found that the best way to move forward is to consider this legislation tomorrow before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I think it is a step in the right direction to say that our nine Supreme Court Justices will at least be held to the same standards of ethical conduct as every other judge in the Federal system. That is not an unreasonable requirement, and it is one that I think would start to repair the image of the Court, which is badly in need of repair.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source