-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, for more than a year, the Supreme Court has been embroiled in an ethical crisis of its own design. Story after story about ethical misconduct by sitting Supreme Court Justices has led the news for months.

For decades, however, Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted lavish gifts and luxury trips from a gaggle of fawning billionaires. The total dollar value of these gifts is in the millions--one Supreme Court Justice, millions of dollars' worth of gifts.

Justice Alito, as well, went on a luxury fishing trip that should have cost him over $100,000, but it didn't cost him a dime because the trip was funded by a billionaire and organized by rightwing kingpin Leonard Leo.

Well, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito failed to disclose gifts they accepted in clear violation of financial disclosure requirements under Federal law.

But it isn't only the shameless conduct that cast a dark shadow over the Court. Time and again, these Justices' actions have cast doubt on their impartiality on cases before the Court.

Last summer, Justice Alito sat for an interview conducted in part by an attorney with a case before the Court. In that interview, Justice Alito went so far as to publicly state that Congress has no authority to regulate the Supreme Court. By doing so, he made it clear that he had already reached a conclusion about the constitutionality of legislation that Congress was considering on the issue--legislation that is before this body today and that could someday come before the Court.

More recently, we learned that flags that were associated with the January 6 insurrection and the far right were displayed outside Justice Alito's home. This happened even as the Court considered cases related to the 2020 Presidential election and the insurrectionist attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Justice Thomas also continues to hear cases related to the January 6 attacks despite his wife's involvement with efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

For years, Justice Thomas served as a fundraising draw at the Koch political network's annual summits. This is the same network that bankrolled another case currently before the Court.

Federal law requires the disqualification of a Supreme Court Justice in any proceeding in which the Justice's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and the Supreme Court's own code of conduct reiterates that Justices should disqualify themselves in cases where there is reasonable doubt about their impartiality. But despite serious questions about the impartiality of Justice Alito and Justice Thomas in numerous cases, they have refused to recuse themselves from these cases.

The ethics crisis at the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land, is unacceptable, it is unsustainable, and it is unworthy of the highest Court in the land.

Our faith in the character and impartiality of our judges is essential to the functioning of our legal system and our constitutional form of government, but that faith requires judges--especially Supreme Court Justices--to conduct themselves in a way that inspires public confidence. The Justices should serve as models for every other judge in America. Instead, they are serving as prime examples for why a binding code of conduct is desperately needed for the Supreme Court.

The ethics crisis at the Court stems in large part from the fact that the nine Justices on the Court are the only Federal officials not bound by an enforceable code of conduct--the only Federal officials not bound by an enforceable code of conduct.

More than 12 years ago, I first asked Chief Justice Roberts to adopt a binding code of conduct for all Supreme Court Justices. In November of last year, for the first time in its 235-year history, the Supreme Court adopted an ineffective code of conduct for its Justices. The new code does not reform the Court's ethics rules in any meaningful way, and it does not include an enforcement mechanism to address violations of the code.

As the Court conceded in a statement accompanying the code of conduct's release, the code ``largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.'' In other words, this so-called new code did not raise the ethical standards to which the Justices would be held; it simply tried to paper over the failed practices of the past.

The Court can address these issues itself. The Court could have issued a stronger code of conduct in the first place. It could revise its own code of conduct today. But Chief Justice Roberts repeatedly refuses to use his authority and power to implement a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court, and until he does, Congress will continue our legislative efforts.

Last year, the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, reported to the Senate floor the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act. The bill, which was led by Senator Whitehouse, who is on the floor, and which I am cosponsoring, would require the Supreme Court to adopt an enforceable code of conduct and add new recusal and transparency requirements that would be binding on the Justices. It would be a real code of conduct. Importantly, this legislation's ethical and recusal requirements would apply equally to every Justice on the Supreme Court regardless of the party of the President who appointed them.

This should not be a partisan issue. An enforceable code of conduct would be a good thing for the Court and for our country. It is essential to ensuring that the American people have confidence in the ethical conduct of the Supreme Court, and it is essential to restoring the Court's reputation.

The highest Court in the land should not and cannot have the lowest ethical standards. That is why I support this legislation and why I urge my colleagues to join me.

199, S. 359, the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023. I further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, before yielding to the Senator from Rhode Island, one of the critics of this proposal said it was a solution in search of a problem. The Republican side of the aisle believes, obviously, that for one Supreme Court Justice to accept lavish gifts and luxury trips from billionaires to the tune of millions of dollars and for another Supreme Court Justice to take an undisclosed fishing trip at the cost of $100,000 is business as usual in the Supreme Court. The American people, I am sure, would disagree.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source