The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to send legislation imposing a code of ethics on the Supreme Court to the floor for consideration.
The vote was along party lines, 11-10, with Democrats using their slight majority to muscle it through.
The legislation is “as dead as fried chicken,” according to Sen. John Kennedy, Louisiana Republican, who noted it won’t receive the necessary 60 votes in the Senate to pass or even be taken up in the GOP-controlled House.
But Senate Democrats insist a code of ethics for the justices is needed after a series of reports on undisclosed luxury vacations taken by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Both justices have denied any sort of conflict of interest in their travels.
“We are here because the highest court in the land has the lowest standard of ethics,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat. “This cannot go on.”
His bill, the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, would require the court to adopt a code of ethics, create a way to probe alleged misconduct and improve transparency and explanations for recusals and connections justices share with parties that may have cases before the court.
Republicans, meanwhile, argued the move was a politically motivated attack from the left on the court.
They introduced a series of amendments, most of which were unsuccessful, highlighting concerns about security for the conservative justices.
One amendment, introduced by Mr. Kennedy, condemned racist comments concerning Justice Thomas — highlighting how Democratic officials have called him a “house slave” and an “Uncle Tom.”
After adding language to condemn all racist remarks about all justices — not just Justice Thomas — the committee agreed to that specific amendment.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, said Democrats first pushed court-packing in 2020, followed by leaking the draft opinion last year revealing the high court was poised to overturn national abortion rights in an attempt to sway the court or impose public pressure.
He said Democrats’ actions have undermined security for justices, citing protests outside the justices’ homes and an assassination attempt against Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.
“The far left continues to deploy extreme tactics to smear the court,” he said. “The latest efforts are to manufacture claims of conflict of interests.”
He said imposing a code of ethics on the justices presents a separation of powers issue.
The push for ethics legislation by Democrats comes after news reports detailing social and business relationships between the justices and a variety of benefactors.
Last month, Justice Alito beat ProPublica to the punch, publishing an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal rebutting a then-unpublished article accusing him of ethics violations. The justice, a President George W. Bush appointee, accused the outlet of misleading readers in an article about his ties to Paul Singer, a billionaire hedge-fund manager.
“ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclose Report. Neither charge is valid,” Justice Alito wrote, regarding allegations he took a vacation at the expense of Mr. Singer who had matters before the bench.
The op-ed followed a series of reports from ProPublica about Justice Thomas.
ProPublica reported that Harlan Crow, a GOP megadonor, paid private school tuition at Hidden Lake Academy and Randolph-Macon Academy for Justice Thomas’ great-nephew, whom the justice took in to raise at the age of 6.
The tuition total could have cost more than $150,000, according to ProPublica. Justice Thomas did not disclose the payments in his financial disclosure forms, and the news outlet suggested that runs afoul of ethical standards required of a federal judge.
ProPublica also reported in April that Justice Thomas did not disclose that he had taken multiple luxury vacations with Mr. Crow or that Mr. Crow had purchased his mother’s home even though she continued to reside there.
The Washington Post followed with an April 16 article examining what appeared to be a typo on the justice’s financial disclosure related to family real estate holdings in which he reported rental income to Ginger Ltd. Partnership instead of Ginger Holdings LLC.
The New York Times followed with a piece critical of Justice Thomas and other Republican appointees collecting generous salaries to teach courses at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia School of Law.
Justice Thomas has defended his friendship with Mr. Crow, and said he consulted with colleagues about disclosure requirements and didn’t skirt any rules.
In response to Democrats’ concerns about ethics, Chief Justice Roberts said the high court has generally followed the Judicial Conferences’ Code of Ethics that are binding on lower courts — but not the Supreme Court — since 1991.
He said all justices must file disclosures that are reviewed by the Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure and follow what lower courts do with recusals. But he noted that the system is flexible, given the composition of the high court.
He also said the justices have has faced increased threats. He said they sometimes do not disclose justices’ travel arrangements for security reasons.
Chief Justice Roberts refused to testify before the lawmakers about their ethics concerns.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.