Couldn't Senator Durbin be doing more?

[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.