Sen. Lindsey Graham says he will block Democrats' effort to unanimously pass Supreme Court ethics bill
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
June 12, 2024, 12:51 AM
By Zoe Richards, Sahil Kapur and Frank Thorp V
Sen. Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, plans to block an effort by Senate Democrats to unanimously pass a Supreme Court ethics bill Wednesday on the Senate floor.
"I will object," Graham, R-S.C., told NBC News.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said earlier Tuesday that he would make a unanimous consent request to pass Supreme Court ethics legislation that the panel advanced last July.
Graham's objection means the bill won't be able to move forward, because any senator can block a request.
It isn't clear whether the measure will come up for a vote under the normal process, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he's considering it.
Even before Graham made his comments, Democrats doubted the legislation would advance. "I think I know the outcome, but we're going to go through the exercise to make sure that both parties are in the record," Durbin told reporters Tuesday afternoon.
The Democratic-led Judiciary Committee advanced the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act on a party-line vote nearly a year ago, but it can't break a filibuster on the Senate floor without 60 votes. Democrats have 51 members, and no Republican is on board with the bill.
In a news release, Democrats said the vote follows "a myriad of apparent ethical lapses by Supreme Court justices, which demonstrate the need for ethics reform."
A spokesperson for the Supreme Court didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday night.
Justice Clarence Thomas reported a pair of trips in 2019 with billionaire friend Harlan Crow to Bali and to the private Bohemian Grove club in California in his annual financial disclosure report, which was released last week. ProPublica reported on Thomas' and other justices' previously undisclosed lavish travel in a series of stories last year that raised questions about the court's ethics.
The bill would give the court 180 days to adopt and publish a code of conduct, allowing the public to submit ethics complaints that would then be reviewed by a randomly selected panel of lower-court judges. It would also establish new rules for disclosing gifts and travel.
The legislation would also require justices to publicly explain any decisions to recuse from cases.
Durbin last month called on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from a pair of cases tied to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, after The New York Times reported that an upside-down American flag was displayed outside his home in the days after the riot. Alito declined to step away from those cases.
Zoe Richards
Zoe Richards is the evening politics reporter for NBC News.
Sahil Kapur
Sahil Kapur is a senior national political reporter for NBC News.
Frank Thorp V
Frank Thorp V is a producer and off-air reporter covering Congress for NBC News, managing coverage of the Senate.
Tags
Who is online
400 visitors
Why Lindsey Why?
Because it is unconstitutional. There is nothing wrong or unethical about the current Supreme Court.
That is demonstrably untrue...
SCOTUS ruling against the Democrats nonsense and they don't like it. Poor babies.
Isn't this the body that still has Menendez sitting as a Senator? ethics my ass.
Difference is Menendez was dumped by the Democrats and is out on his ass by the end of the year and will probably end up in prison...
Alito and Thomas will still be on the Supreme Court until they die!
He is still in the Senate because democrat leadership doesn't have the ethics to remove him, so they shouldn't be forcing ethics on others,
Why don't we talk about Sotomayer who took 3 million form a publisher and then ruled on a case about them?
At least one senator understands separation of powers and the constitution. Good for graham.
Congress should concern itself with the ethics of senator whitesonly and Menendez if they need something to do.
Yeah, fuck all that "Checks and Balance" bullshit! Am I Right?
No, you're wrong.
I suspect you would be very happy an ultra-liberal Supreme Court.
Who would determine if a justice was acting unethically? You want to give the senate or the house the power to remove a justice?
They already have that power. It's called impeachment.
You suggesting this would not make it easier?
One does need to wonder how much bitching would occur if the Supreme Court were to rule to impose limits on Congress....
I know a lot of people who would love to see term limits on all elected officials.
“…would love to see term limits on all elected officials.”
Indeed.
Two terms for a Senator, six for Congress, and twenty years for a Justice. Thus making them more accountable to their constituents and less beholden to the PACs; and also allowing new blood, new ideas, and less entrenched thought and in knowing the limits, less potential of becoming being just another partisan puppet.
Yeah, the idea of the supreme court dictating rules on which members of congress can vote on which bills would rightfully be laughed out of existence. But progressive special interest groups spend hundreds of millions of dollars inventing a crisis to try and control the court and the progressive sheep are with congress trying to control the court.
separation of powers
Separation of powers is a doctrine of constitutional law under which the three branches of government ( executive , legislative , and judicial ) are kept separate. This is also known as the system of checks and balances , because each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches.
Each branch has separate powers, and generally each branch is not allowed to exercise the powers of the other branches.
The Legislative Branch exercises congressional power , the Executive Branch exercises executive power , and the Judicial Branch exercises judicial review .
separation of powers | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
In a news release, Democrats said the vote follows "a myriad of apparent ethical lapses by Supreme Court justices, which demonstrate the need for ethics reform."
Yea, all the judges that were put in by a Republican president. Including a guy that likes beer and a woman with alot of kids