Republicans Fine With Supreme Court Justices Having No Formal Code Of Ethics

WASHINGTON ― Senate Democrats have been demanding congressional action in response to to overturn the 2020 presidential election while he was continuing to hear and rule on cases related to that plot.

Thomas has also repeatedly failed to file financial disclosures properly. In 2011, he reportedly failed to disclose the income that his wife, Ginni Thomas, received from a mix of conservative think tanks, political groups and educational entities over 13 years.

Despite all of this, Republican senators seem content to let the nation’s highest court carry on as it currently is. Some are dismissing Democrats’ latest efforts as purely political. Some argue it wouldn’t be constitutional for lawmakers to meddle in the court’s affairs.

“Ohhh, I don‘t know about that,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said of Murkowski’s proposal. “Separation of powers?”

“There’s a reason the separate branches of government were established,” said Lummis. “Good heavens, they’re judges. This is something they can and should do on their own.”

Grassley said it would be “inappropriate and unnecessary” for senators to take any action to impose ethics rules on Supreme Court justices because of the new disclosure regulations put in place for federal courts last month.

“If those aren’t adequate, we aren’t going to know that for a year or two,” said the Iowa Republican. “So, just wait for a year or two to see how the new rules work out.”

Even Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is considered one of the few moderates in the chamber and who often sides with Murkowski on various issues, didn’t weigh in on her bill.

“This is a very complex issue involving the separation of powers, and Senator Collins believes the appropriate forum for these discussions is the Judiciary Committee,” said Collins spokeswoman Annie Clark. “If the Committee holds a hearing on this proposal and others, she looks forward to seeing the results of it.”

But some legal experts said it’s nonsense to suggest that lawmakers would be overstepping if they pushed through ethics reforms for the court.

“Read the Constitution, folks,” said Caroline Fredrickson, a distinguished visiting professor at Georgetown Law and a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice. “Congress is responsible for creating the jurisdiction for the Supreme Court, and Congress creates the lower courts … It’s a really self-serving argument that the court makes that somehow there’s this incredible separation of powers issue for Congress to intervene at all.”

Fredrickson, who previously served on President Joe Biden’s Commission on the Supreme Court that examined potential reforms to the court, said Congress has plenty of roles to play in how the court functions. Impeachment is one tool, she said, as is approving the court’s budget. Lawmakers also have the authority to expand the size of the court, which Fredrickson said is “an existential need” to many people at this point.

“Really, the idea that somehow none of this conversation is about how the Supreme Court should absolutely obey the most basic of ethics laws and have a code of conduct really underscores the problem that we have,” she said. “A judiciary that is acting with impunity.”

As for why the Supreme Court hasn’t ever had a formal ethics code, Fredrickson said when the Judicial Conference adopted its code for the lower courts decades ago, it just “didn’t seem so vital” to do the same for the justices.

“They’ve slipped under the radar until now,” she added. “It’s been due to great reporting … that has really brought the spotlight on the fact that the Supreme Court has not been abiding even by the rules it says it follows, which then makes us look at all the rules that it’s not legally required to follow and ask the question, ‘Why not?’”

All of these issues will be hashed out in Tuesday’s hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. What’s clear is that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the chairman, really wants to find a bipartisan way forward. What’s less clear is if or how Republicans plan to engage at all.

A spokesman for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the top Republican on the committee, said only that “he hasn’t said anything” about Murkowski’s bill or generally about the Supreme Court needing to tighten its ethics rules.

Murkowski, for one, said she hopes her bill can be a starting point for people to realize that ethics reforms on the court aren’t about partisanship, but about restoring public trust in the court, which is at a historic low.

“I know Harlan Crow. I like Harlan Crow. I like Justice Thomas,” she told HuffPost. “I don’t view this as going after Justice Thomas or picking on anybody.”

“Just as we have codes of conduct and disclosures that are required for all of us, is it so unreasonable to suggest the Supreme Court should also have a code of conduct?” she asked. “That the public not only knows exists but knows what it says? Let’s build that trust.”