Couldn't Senator Durbin be doing more?

[Eliot Rosewater]

With the Supreme Court situation by holding hearings and forcing Republicans to go on the record and having votes, etc..

Asking for a friend, sort of actually I hear this from people I respect including progressive talk radio and I read it from people I highly respect and say it’s just maddening that more is not being done like that.

Any chance any Democrat has getting in front of the camera which I know is not often they need to be reminding the American people that Donald Trump is a convicted felon and it is absurd to consider voting for him.

Hear the same about Senator Schumer also, somehow some of these people in our party still think that we are in the normal situation that we’ve always been in and it’s business as usual. frustrating

[onecaliberal]

1. YES!!!

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. How do we pressure them if they are not our Senators?

However it is we must do it, millions of us must.

[onecaliberal]

5. Local editorials, social media pressure.

It’s going to take pressure. Ultimately if that were my Senator, there is zero chance I’d vote for him. These people get away with everything because we do not hold them accountable.
We’re all so busy working ourselves to death, it’s hard to pay attention to the firehouse of bullshit coming from what passes for the media.

[KPN]

2. Yes!

[Raven123]

4. I suspect they are focused on the 2024 campaign

Having hearings and forcing votes gets little coverage in the media.

[onecaliberal]

6. This can't continue to be ignored. It just can't.

If you look at Alito’s congressional testimony at his confirmation hearing . He repeatedly lied his ass off. This has to STOP. They are killing pregnant women right now.

[Raven123]

8. I hear you.

At this moment, they are focused on getting votes. With November around the corner, Control of the Senate is a huge issue. Not sure hearings will make a difference.

[onecaliberal]

11. This is just me. But allowing the men on that court to strip civil rights from Americans is a losing issue.

[Raven123]

14. They were "allowed" the moment they became SCOTUS members

This is the problem. Currently they can only be removed by impeachment. Not gonna happen. They have the numbers. As we have heard often, many voters assumed issues were settled by previous rulings. Sadly, we are learning otherwise. I am pained as well. If we can hold POTUS and the Senate (which doesn’t look likely) we can hope to replace someone.

[Bev54]

9. Durbin should be making so many waves that will get coverage. Time to do something.

[bigtree]

10. why aren't you posting what he's doing?

...it's as easy to find as this forum.

He's actually the person doing the most on this issue; the one who has done the most.

They just brought up his committee's SC ethics bill THIS WEEK, ffs, in an attempt to break the republican filibuster.

What about the other committee members? Is anyone accusing Sen. Whitehouse of inaction toward the SC? Is Sen. Blumenthal, who is also prominent on that committee balking? Of course not.

This misdirection about Durbin is just a canard, and it's being promoted as some kind of revelation, instead of coming up with ways to hold republicans accountable.

[Bev54]

12. You have posted it yourself, why would I duplicate it. It is time to make some good trouble

to get more attention by the press, that is what I am getting at. They are ignoring a lot of it and something needs to get that attention.

[bigtree]

13. in my time

...we took more interest in stirring up trouble for the opposition than with our own legislators.

[bigtree]

7. first, let's establish that you know what Sen. Durbin is actually doing, has done

...nevermind.

I'll just brush past this Durbin trolling and spell it out.

Critics of Sen. Durbin need to speak to where his committee actually stands, not just where they want it to.

Not ONE critic has bothered to mention that Durbin's Judiciary Committee, after extensive public hearings with a raft of witnesses, voted out a comprehensive ethics bill for the SC JUST LAST SUMMER.

Sens. Durbin and Whitehouse have continuously called for passage of the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act, legislation Senate Judiciary Committee advanced last July. The bill requires justices to adopt a binding code of conduct.

07.20.2023
Durbin, Whitehouse Statement on Senate Judiciary Committee Advancing Supreme Court Ethics Reform Bill to Full Senate

The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023 would require the Court to adopt a code of ethical conduct

WASHINGTON – Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023 to the full Senate. U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights, released the following statement on the vote:

“Public support of the Supreme Court is at an all-time low following the steady stream of reports of Justices’ ethical failures. This vote is a first step in restoring the American people’s confidence in its highest court,” said Durbin and Whitehouse. “We’ve been working for 11 years to encourage the Supreme Court to adopt a binding code of conduct for all its Justices, whether appointed by Democratic or Republican Presidents. Chief Justice Roberts had his chance to act, and he refused. Now, we will – and it’s well within our constitutional authority to act. These reforms would apply in equal force to all Justices and – importantly – reinforce the Court’s legitimacy, contrary to the unfounded assertions by Senate Judiciary Republicans. It’s time for the nine Supreme Court Justices to abide by a code of conduct just like every other federal official. We look forward to working with our colleagues on its consideration before the full Senate.”

The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023 would:

-require Supreme Court Justices to adopt a code of conduct;
-create a mechanism to investigate alleged violations of the code of conduct and other laws;
-improve disclosure and transparency when a Justice has a connection to a party or amicus before the Court; and
-require Justices to explain their recusal decisions to the public.

Durbin and Whitehouse have been calling on the Supreme Court to adopt an enforceable code of conduct for more than a decade. They first sent a letter to the Chief Justice on this issue 11 years ago.

It was the actual product of Sen. Durbin's solitary committee's efforts to produce a bill and vote it out to the Senate floor that was, again, on tap for a vote THIS WEEK and, again, blocked by republicans.

Where's the demand that REPUBLICANS allow the ethics bill to come up for a vote? The one DURBIN'S committee drafted, held hearings on, and sent to the Senate floor.

Any actual interest in that? Because questioning Durbin like he's the problem is something SC MAGA must be loving. By positing that there's some pie in the sky solution, critics deliberately ignore what's already been done by Durbin's committee. He's not, and he's hoping someone will speak to where the Senate is, not just where people want it to be.

Link to tweet

So, let's do this...

Why doesn't his Judiciary Committeee just subpoena the justices?

Who believes they would show up? Then what?

-Senate math simply isn’t there to go this route.
-It would take either a bipartisan vote or a majority vote.
-Even if enough committee members agreed to subpoena Alito, it would take 60 votes in the full Senate to approve it (and there are whispers of a Dem holdout on the committee. Coons?)

Moreover, any impeachment of SC justices originates by law in the House; de-funding the Court, as well, except by a 60-vote Senate waiver.

But sure, let's start a thread for folks to snark and whine about Durbin doing something less than he's already done; last time in direct response to reports about gift-taking by Alito and Thomas.

Lets whip Durbin around for doing that responsible thing made ineffective by republican obstruction, then demand he do another thing that will be made ineffective by republican obstruction (this time without new legislation. Hell, why even mention it?).


CST last May: "The hearings, led by Dick Durbin, began this week and are perhaps the only vehicle, at this stage, to leverage public pressure that could lead to an ethics code for the nation’s highest court."
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/5/3/23708253/supreme-court-ethics-hearings-dick-durbin-judiciary-clarence-thomas-john-roberts-democracy-editorial

So, to recap:

By law, only the MAGA-controlled House can initiate impeachment of a SC justice. They also initiate ALL spending bills (except when the Senate produces 60 votes) which would pressure the Court. So what piffle of a response are critics even talking about?

HuffPo:

As for launching a new investigation into Alito, Durbin dismissed the idea that the committee isn’t already looking into justices’ ethics, given the bombshell reporting that’s come out about their activities in the last year or so.

“We issued subpoenas to some of the sugar daddies, and we received some information, which we’re processing now,” Durbin said, referring to the panel previously serving subpoenas to Crow and conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo, both of whom have close ties to Supreme Court justices.

On Wednesday evening, Democrats also tried to bring up a bill on the Senate floor ― the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act ― that would require the nine justices to adopt a binding code of conduct. Republicans blocked it from getting a vote.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dick-durbin-supreme-court-samuel-alito-subpoena_n_666c6b4de4b0c029c19dc7dc

And talking about our Senate Majority Leader like Politico or Axios is really something. In the Senate, not only have republicans blocked passage of almost everything that's not mandated to come to a vote by law, the Senate Democratic majority is partly made up with TWO quasi-republicans.

It's easy to bash the party for what republicans are blocking. I guess it's harder for some to actually take time here to highlight what our Democrats are doing and saying.

[lees1975]

15. I contacted Senator Durbin about this.

I received a reply which basically stated the problem very clearly, pointed to the Ethics, Recusal and Transparency act he is co-sponsoring in the Senate (SCERT Senate Bill 359). He also mentioned that Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo were issued subpoenas to testify before the judiciary committee and have refused to do so.

I'd suggest to other Illinois Democrats to contact him about this, and let them know there's a lot of interest and concern. He's generally pretty responsive.

[spanone]

16. Are people allowed to ignore a Congressional Subpoena? It appears so...

[Eliot Rosewater]

18. Nobody I know posts more anti-Republican anti-Maga

Anti-Trump stuff on social media than I do, although I’m sure there are actually, but I constantly criticize them on social media and the only place where I criticize Democrats is here where it’s more underground.

I guess the point is we are in a state of emergency and we cannot act like we used to act pretending that there are two political parties.

[Eliot Rosewater]

17. Great. Thanks

If they refuse to comply with a subpoena isn’t there a legal way to force them, I know let’s do what the Republicans would do in the reverse.

[lees1975]

22. Jim Jordan still hasn't responded to his subpoena from the January 6th Committee investigation.

These people do not believe in the rule of any law except when they are the ones wanting it enforced.

This is why we need to get our people out to vote instead of all of the bucking and fussing about nothing issues. It's time for Democratic leadership to knock some heads together and point out that staying home and not supporting Biden means they lose everything.
1. Don't believe anything the media tells you about what is happening in Gaza. This President is doing as much as any President can do on behalf of Gaza. If those who keep muttering, grumbling and protesting realized the truth, they would help the Democrats elect majorities in both houses, and re-elect Biden, so that the alliance can be used more effectively to stop the war and negotiate a livable peace. Don't be stupid, be realistic.
2. Re-electing Biden and giving him a democratic majority in both houses will open the door to making sure the Supreme Court, for years and decades down the road, has justices on board who respect the rule of law.
3. Every progressive group that is protesting, or advocating for its position will lose everything if Trump is elected. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain with a Biden victory and a Democratic congress.
4. Jill Stein doesn't stand a snowball's chance on a hot stove of being elected, so don't waste your vote on her. Vote Biden and then everything she is pushing will be open to consideration. If Trump wins, he'll jail her.

[Kid Berwyn]

19. Weird, isn't it?

Sen. Durbin often blast the SCOTUS turds' lack of integrity in speeches, yet no action is taken by the Judiciary committees in Congress.

We need every Democratic voice to speak up at every opportunity to spell out who is doing what to whom and how via the Supreme Court.

And we need every Democratic legislator in a position to do so to act to reign in the lawlessness, corruption and basic ratfuckery of the six Republican, Feudalist Society-selected and Hermitage Flamdation-approved justices.

[Demsrule86]

21. There is nothing we can do...and Roe is the most important voting issue...so lets roll up our sleeves and win elections/

and when we win, then we deal with the courts.

[Kid Berwyn]

23. There is a lot we can do. For starters, let's fight fire with fire.

When they spin, our first recourse is to return the truth. Yet, the pukes lie so fast, frequently and incessantly that it's almost impossible to keep up or resist the firehose of disinformation that comes from Trump and Associates.

Consider the "Overturning of Roe." Almost a fifth of the country (17%) thinks that was President Biden's doing. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/voters-blame-biden-roe-v-wade_n_6642825ce4b09724138d3646
Might even be higher now.

My point is, my Friend, when the GOP uses government office to advance an un-American agenda, say whittle away Civil Rights or give ammosexuals a baby bumpstock via a right-wing packed Supreme Court, we need more than talk, we need action -- to borrow a phrase, Democratic Action. That's where our Party and Senator Durbin come in.

[bigtree]

24. it's untrue that 'no action was taken in the Judiciary Committee'

...just completely untrue.

Wtf is the point in the disinfo about his committee? Take a minute to see what they've done.

The ONLY legislative effort that's been accomplished came out of DURBIN'S committee. The ONLY bill ready to go, which Democrats tried to advance on the Senate floor THIS WEEK, was voted out of his committee after extensive hearings with multiple witnesses in response to the LAST reports of Alito's and Thomas' financial chicanery.

What other senator has done more to bring accountability to the SC? Hell, the only internal ethics effort by the Court came after pressure from DURBIN's committee.

Enough with the misinfo. Make An Effort, at least ONE to confront and complain about the REPUBLICANS who are the actual obstacle to reform.

And while critics are at it, please stop pretending there's some easy fix that Durbin can pull out of a hat without republican votes.

For the misinformed:

-Senate math simply isn’t there to enforce subpoenas.
-It would take either a bipartisan vote or a majority vote.
-Even if enough committee members agreed to subpoena Alito, it would take 60 votes in the full Senate to approve it (and there are whispers of a Dem holdout on the committee. Coons?)

Moreover, any impeachment of SC justices originates by law in the House; de-funding the Court, as well, except by a 60-vote Senate waiver.

By law, only the MAGA-controlled House can initiate impeachment of a SC justice. They also initiate ALL spending bills (except when the Senate produces 60 votes) which would pressure the Court. So what piffle of a response are critics even talking about?

[betsuni]

25. +1

[Kid Berwyn]

26. Really, thanks!

Many wonder why, even when in the minority, the Republicans always seem to get their way in the Senate.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dick-durbin-supreme-court-samuel-alito-subpoena_n_666c6b4de4b0c029c19dc7dc

Without a 60-vote majority, might as well sit back and whistle, "Dixie." Which is where we're heading.

ETA: Link to Sen. Whitehouse's 29th speech on holding SCOTUS responsible for their radical work on behalf of the Turd Reich:

[Demsrule86]

20. No. They don't care what we say. We need the votes...and we don't have them.

hold a hearing and then do nothing...we will be blamed for doing nothing...work on getting out the vote and use Roe.

[Eliot Rosewater]

30. My understanding is we could lose the Senate

If we don’t get a lot of people voting that don’t normally vote.

I think it’s our fault people or people of my generation and the one before it that people under the age of 29 don’t understand why they have to vote, but we have to convince them because one out of four is how many bothered to vote even after abortion was thrown out by the perjurers on the Supreme Court.

[Voltaire2]

27. Why the fascists are better at politics right now.

They understand that it is all performance, theater. So in the house they go after Garland and hold him in contempt for absolutely nothing knowing full well it will go nowhere.

We continue to believe that what is important is results. So in the Senate, knowing that they have no chance of removing one of the corrupt judges or passing legislation to force their recusal from conflicting cases or impose penalties for failure to comply with financial disclosure requirements, we deprioritize the hearings that could foreground their corruption.

[Eliot Rosewater]

29. Didn't at least two of them or three of them commit perjury during the confirmation hearings?

When they are being questioned in the confirmation hearing, are they under oath?

Proving it, of course, would be next to impossible because you would need a corruption free court system to do it.

[Voltaire2]

31. Yes.

Proof is irrelevant. The point is to frame them as corrupt liars in the pockets of plutocrats. Be as outrageous as the republicans are in their hearings. The difference of course is that these shitty judges are actually corrupt liars in the pockets of plutocrats, even if we can't do anything about it. Make the media cover it, even if they sneer at it. To get attention you have to make a lot of noise.

[republianmushroom]

28. Sure seems like he could be doing more.

If not, than somethings need to be changed.