Transcripts For CSPAN3 Senate 20240703

Judiciary committee will come to order. Welcome, everyone. We have a conflict with the Senate Appropriations committee. Several of us on both committees. We will be starting the meeting sometime this morning. And we may be called to attend. Senator, for example, has a bill, if im not mistaken, before the committee. We will work to accommodate everyone schedule here. Trying to keep things moving forward. Two atoms on todays agenda. We will vote on one judicial nominee, julia kaine lemonade, middle district judge for the middle district of pennsylvania. We will also vote on s 3 59. The Supreme Court ethics, transparency, and recruit youll act of 2023, sponsored by senator feinstein, klobuchar, booker, padilla and wells. It was 11 years ago in a very different Supreme Court when we first called and chief Justice Roberts to adopt a binding cold contact for all Supreme Court justices. Today, the Senate Judicial committee will vote on a bill that will finally bring at the Supreme Court justice ethics requirement in line with virtually every other Public Servant in the federal government. I want to commend senator whitehouse for his performance on this piece of legislation. He has worked on for a long, long, time. I respect the good work he has put into. It this legislation will be a crucial first step in restoring confidence in the court after a steady stream of reports of justices ethical failures have been released to the public. The public support for the Supreme Court is an alltime low. I will speak more about the bill when we turn to. It we will ask members to withhold their comments until that moment after we consider the nominee. For now, i turn to the ranking member, senator graham. Thank you, mister chairman. I will respond to your comments about the bill in a minute. Judge, the nominees mid monthly we had some concerns about political donations. We have looked and im satisfied that everything is okay. Im certainly ready to move forward on here. Thank you, senator graham. Is there anyone that seeks a condition to speak on judge mom leaves nomination. If not im favorably reporting to nomination of Kathleen Mckinley to be the middle district of pennsylvania judge. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Whitehouse mr. Klobuchar . Mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Roanoke mr. Padilla . Mr. Ossoff . Mr. . Mr. Grassley . None. No by proxy. Mr. Cruz . No by proxy. Mr. Hawley . No. Mr. Cotton . Now by proxy. No proxy. Senator durbin . I. I have 12, nays are. Nine the nomination will be favorably reported to the floor. Thank you for your consideration. It is s359 the Supreme Court ethics, recusal, interns fair and see act. The past few months ive seen a ethical failure highlighted in the highest court in the land. Supreme Court Justices appointed by both republican and democratic president s. Justice Clarence Thomas traveled the world in billionaire crow billionaire private jet. Buying the home of justices home and allowing live there rent free. He even paid for the education of relative just to thomas. None of this with included in Justice Thomass Financial Disclosures. Justice samuel alito took an all expense paid luxury fishing trip to alaska. He traveled there on the private jet of Billionaire Hedge Fund manager, pulsing. Or he stayed at a Fishing Lodge of conservative donna raab and berkeley. Like Justice Thomas, Justice Alito did not disclose any of these receipts in explaining this Justice Alito said he did not believe he was required to disclose the private jet travel because he was sitting in a seat that would have otherwise been empty. Justice so to my used her tax funded court stab to promote additional sales of her books and conjunction with speaking gauge. Meant she failed to recuse herself with cases involving her bush publisher. If any of the senators are sitting in this room today, were advised in similar activities, theyre in violation of the ethical rules that govern congress. Thats because all of us are subject to enforceable codes of conduct that prohibit us from accepting gifts and using taxpayer funds for personal gain. We are required to make personal disclosures about our finances, and consequences if we fail to meet the standards. The same is not true for the nine justices across the street. Unlike every other federal official, Supreme Court justices are not bound by a code of ethical conduct. They are the most powerful judges in america, and yet, they are not required to follow the most basic ethical standards. What we are considering will change that. It would require the Supreme Court to adopt an enforceable code of conduct. It would also add new recruit results and transparency requirements to federal law. And this, way it would bring all nine justices of the Supreme Court and lined with every other federal judge in america. Required a code of conduct for Supreme Court justices should not be controversial. Historians and legal scholars from across the political spectrum agree that legislation, and closing a code of conduct of the Supreme Court, is necessary and well within congresss congressional authority. Members of this committee on both sides of the aisle have a long lead efforts to make the Supreme Court more accountable and transparent. In 2021, our colleague, senator cohen, along with our colleagues, editor cohens, introduced the courthouse ethics and Transparency Act. This would require all federal judiciary offices, including Supreme Court justices, to file disclosures of certain security transactions just like members of congress. That bill passed the senate unanimously, both parties, and was signed into law by president biden. The Supreme Court is abiding by this congressional action. Two years ago, this committee, with the support of five republican senators, favorably reported cameras in the courtroom act. A bipartisan bill that i have long which would require the Supreme Court to prevent Television Coverage of the court with limited exceptions. Some have suggested that democrats are pursuing Supreme Court Ethics Reform to target the courts current rightwing majority. Far from it. The reforms were proposed the wooden applied to any equal force to all just says. It was more than 11 years ago that a very different Supreme Court, when i first emerged a binding code of conduct. Unfortunately, he did not accept my suggestion. Since then, as more more stories have emerged, justices ethical lapses, the americans people confidence in the Supreme Courts trip to an alltime low. My colleagues, my colleagues, the Supreme Court term begins with the announcement by the marshal of the United States Supreme Court. He strikes the gavel and says, the honorable, the chief justice and associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yay. All persons putting businesses before the honorable Supreme Court of the United States were drawing nearer and giving attention to the court is now setting. God save the United States, and this honorable court. Three times what the Supreme Court is honorable. With the enactment of this legislation, our highest court in the land can make that claim. I now yield the center to graham. Thank you mister chairman. I appreciate it very much. This will be a spirited debate. I hope you have nowhere to go today because we have a lot of amendments worthy of your consideration. A couple points, what youre trying to do is not improve the court, youre trying to destroy it. Its been an ongoing effort here. [silence] you have to look at this in terms of whats been going on for a couple of years. So senator schumer, this is the court. Goes over to the court awhile back and says i want to tell you kavanaugh, you have released a whirlwind, you will pay the price. You wont know what hate you if you go forward with these awful decisions. This is the majority leader of the United States senate. Supreme Court Justices know theyre in for opposition. They have security. That was the explanation given by a representative from New Hampshire when conservative judges basically had their houses around it. There were much protesters. Maxime waters, who have known for a long time, like maxime, you aint seen nothing yet. To help with the Supreme Court. We will divide them. Democrats look at packing the Supreme Court. You dont like the makeup of the court, you have done just about everything there is to do to delegitimize this court. Members of the democratic leadership went to the steps of the Supreme Court, and literally threaten people. When it comes to Clarence Thomas, the new republic, i dont, get it but apparently some we all do, the democrats need to restore his reputation. You are trying very hard, youre going to fail miserably. This bill is going nowhere. All of us are going to vote no. I hope you bring it to the floor. I hope we have a spirited debate about what this bill would do to the court. This is not what senator cohen was trying to do. This is legislation that would fundamentally change the way the court operates. The Supreme Court was created by the constitution. Its a coequal branch of government. Our Founding Fathers decided to create three branches of government, and set of the Supreme Court in the constitution. This was created by statutes. The bill you had before us would fundamentally or row the power of the Supreme Court has enjoyed over time. It would allow lower Court Justices to dispose of complaints against the court. They would subpoena the members of the Supreme Court. It would create a complaint body, or anybody could file a complaint against the court, and the complaint would be adjudicated by lower Court Justices. This strikes at the heart of the court being the Supreme Court. Your work russell mechanism, you cant expand the court. Senator said something very smart, as he always does, yesterday. This would drink the court. It would be a massive effort by liberals across the country to disqualify conservatives in every major case. The way you handle recruits all is that you micromanage how the Court Must Decide went to recuse. The individual justices would no longer have that power, he would give it to other justices. That is a constitutional assault in the power of the court to do business. None of us have any illusions about what is going on. This would be on the 2024 ballot, i hope. The effort to remake a conservative Supreme Courts unlimited. What people on the other side will do and the name of having people on the court that they agree with, its almost unlimited. When the justices were surrounded in their homes, the attorney sat quietly by a didnt do anything about it. So i try to work with you when i cab, it took us 50 years to get a conservative court. We did it the oldfashioned way. We nominated people, weve got the vote, we worked hard. About garland, and all of these other accusations, we did nothing outside the norm of the senate when it came to finding people to put on the court. The bottom line is, this is a bill not designed to make the court stronger, more ethical. It is a bill to destroy conservative court. This is a bill to create a situation where conservative judges can be disqualified by statues. Its a bill to remake how the govern a bell. Its an assault on the court itself. You complain about whats going on in israel, they can find a way. To deal with their independent judiciary problems. To be lectured by the Democratic Party is a bit rich. Every one of you is openly suggested that we should change the number of the Supreme Court. If i am wrong, this is your chance to say, no, i dont want to expand the court. I believe it is the position of the Democratic Party to expand the number of justices from nine, to probably 13, so you can dilute the power of a conservative court. Just think how that plays out overtime. Every time there is a change of power in the executive branch of congress, will we change the number to get outcomes we like . That is what you are willing to do. That is the most extreme solution to a problem i can think of. Back in the court, destroy the court. Passing legislation to micromanage how the court operates destroys the court, creating a complaint process in the name of ethics that is designed to disqualify people you dont like, it destroys the court. This will not stand. I dont know what the vote will be in this committee. I can assure you that the American People that this illconceived effort in the name of reforming the court will go nowhere in the United States senate. Thank you, senator graham. This has now taken a lets be clear, there is only one living senator who is change the size of the Supreme Court. That is senator mcconnell, the republican leader. He shrank the court to eight seats for nearly a year for purely political reasons by refusing to consider merrick garlands nomination. Chair recognizes senator whitehouse. If i may, it is the position of the minority that you do not want to expand the court. Is that the position of the Senate Majority . I only speak for myself. Well thats one. It is clear that there is an effort by the left to expand the court. What senator mcconnell did is consistent with what happened in the bush administration. Senator whitehouse. Thank you. Let me start by thanking senator durbin for this markup up our Supreme Court ethics refusal and Transparency Act, and the rest of our colleagues for cosponsoring that. This bill would directly address some of the already disclosed misconduct weve seen in the Supreme Court recently. Comprehensive judicial ethics legislation is overdue, but its worth remembering how we got to todays markup. And then we start to be candid. My belief is the Supreme Court has been captured by special interests, much like a railroad a mission and the 1890s had been captured by Railroad Barons to go their way. I knew the ethics were hair wire at the Supreme Court when i discovered that Justice Khalil had taken many dozens of unreported vacations, often with political companions. His theory, evidently, was a personal invitation from a resort owner hed never met. He made a free vacation the kind of personal hospitality that did not need to be reported under federal law. That, is of course, ridiculous. When i got this notion, before the judicial conference, they shot it down in flames. The verdict of their fellow judges. Other justices had witnessed this behavior over decades, but did nothing about. Other than, and some cases, to copy it. Then came the coordinated who showed up at the court. Some have been paid by parties, others have massed special interests throughout the law. There is a disclosure rule for all of this, but its enforcement is a failure. Heres an appendix i filed showing whos behind the the biggest flew to live, no surprise, appeared in the dark money case. This is a corporate appendix of the Koch Brothers main political dark money battleship, americans for prosperity. I counted 55. These a white wing affront groups have a particular staggering record of justice and leaning their way. Justice thomas and the january 6th case, the lawfulness, or unlawfulness, of his failure to recuse depends on simple facts. What he knew about his wifes insurrection activity. When he knew it. To this day, the court has engaged in zero efforts to make that factual determination. Worse, it has no means to. It is the only core in the country, perhaps, the only court in the world with no ethics process, not all. Then came the news, six politically active right wing billionaires have been paying household expenses, engaging in providing massive gifts of hospitality for at least two justices. Not one person on this committee could or would accept such a bonanza. Let alone keep it secret. Norwood executive Branch Officials, nor would any other federal judge. That is before you throw in the repeated companionship of the justices on these travels with the operatives at the heart of the court captured scheme. Yet, the Supreme Court remains supremely idle. The last two points. One, the judiciary has a process for resolving ethics questions and giving ethics advice. The justices seem uniquely to refuse to follow. It for instance, asking random colleagues and friends about Financial Disclosure obligations instead of asking the actual Financial Disclosure committee of the judicial conference that is there for that purpose. The excuse is, when they are caught, have been laughable. For instance, that they dont need to disclose these junk its because a private jet airplane is traveling on that airplane not travel but is food, lodging, or entertainment. Remember, as we debate that the courts Financial Disclosure requirements are a law passed by congress. Its recusal requirements are a law passed by congress. The body that implements Financial Disclosure and code of conduct issues is the judicial conference. A body created by congress. Please, lets not pretend that congress cannot make amendments to laws that congress has passed. Or oversee agencies that congress has created. For decades, the justices themselves have never objected to, and have actually, repeatedly, and without complaint complied with this structure. Even the court has demonstrated it does not believe justice canard. We are here because the highest court in the land has the lowest standard of ethics anywhere in the federal government. Justices have exhibited much improper behavior. Not least in hapless efforts to excuse misdeeds. This cannot go on. Defending this behavior is defending the indefensible. Thank you, chairman. Senator grassley . I will be voting against this very partisan Supreme Court ethics recusal in Transparency Act. This bill is not about oversight or accountability. It is about harassing and intimidating the Supreme Court. Over the past several years the far left has mounted and unprecedented assault against the Supreme Court. The farleft is unhappy with the courts conservative majority, and tests a handful of its decisions. The far left has resorted to considering that only 9 of the courts decisions last year were on a 6 to 3 division. The far left playbook is to attack the courts. Cast doubt on the legitimacy of the institution. Impugn the reputation of the justices. Attempt to dictate the rules and practices of a separate branch of government. Since 2020, we have seen proposals to resurrect the failed, misguided ideas of the court. This is a notion overwhelmingly rejected by the American People when it was last proposed during the new deal era of the 1930s. Nevertheless, some on the left are actively pushing bills to pack the court anyway. Fdr could not do it. How do they think they can do it today . In 2022, we saw the extraordinary and unethical leap of the dobbs decision. This was an over attempt to ramp up public pressure against the court. To sway justices before the final decision was issued. Thankfully, these attempts failed. The farleft continuous to deploy extreme tactics to smear the court. Conservative justices homes, undresses, were publicly posted and shared. Protesters hold weekly demonstrations outside the homes of justices in violations of federal statutes. Justices and their families have been confronted in public. Even at restaurants, sometimes on vacation. This has resulted in real physical security concerns. At least one assassination attempt. Some of these justices have Young Children who witnessed the shocking acts of intimidation. Over the past few months, the late effort to manufacture claims of conflict of interest. At first, there were attacks against spouses of justices, who also have to work in the vast legal field. However, no such claims were lodged against justice oconnor, or justice ginsburg, whose husbands or lawyers while these justices served on the bench. Now there is a drip of stories attacking conservative justices. The stories conflate trips from years ago, some decades ago, with newlyupdated disclosure guidelines announced in march of this year. The rule change from the judicial conference is related to personal hospitality exceptions due to the disclosure. The justice, the judiciary, took action on its own to bring clarity to what was only broad in poorly defined. Traveling by certain justices, they are going to raise conjecture and misrepresent the facts and failed to explain the rules that were in place prior to the march 7th changes of rural regulation. Some of the events in question took place many years ago during the courts liberal majority. Where was the outrage at that time . Were they pacified by the courts more liberal decision . Or is this newfound at focus just simply political smoke and mirrors. While, the answer is obvious. This is all part of the democrats promise made at the steps of the Supreme Court, in 2020. To released the whirlwind. On may 2nd the wall street Journal Editorial Board wrote a great article on this. And ongoing political theater. The article correctly notes that, socalled, Supreme Court Ethics Reforms is another front to the Political Campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court. With the goal of tarnishing its ruling in subjecting it to more political control. Further the quote, the campaign is on full display in the press. With reporters at multiple publications suddenly searching for supposed ethics violations or conflicts of interest. The paper writes that rioters have examined and debunked these reports. This is a political project and accusations are going to continue to be asserted as if they are serious. As the wall street journal quoted. I would like to into that into the record. The farleft is calling for Ethics Reforms and recusal reforms for the Supreme Court. Chief among them, this bill before us which raises constitutional concerns. Article three, section one, clause one of the constitution states that the judicial powers of the United States will be vested in one Supreme Court. Such inferior courts as congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish, and cool. Unfortunately, this bill usurps the constitution. It presents the clear separation of powers issue. It also calls for various lower court and Judicial Panel to rule, review and rule, on the actions of the one Supreme Court. So, can you imagine . Lower courts established by congress would be tasked with policing the Supreme Court in ways our founders sought to avoid. And all of the hearings the Judicial Committee has had on this topic, not one witness was able to articulate, effectively, how article how to articulate, effectively, how such would be constitutionally sound. The act would create a roadmap for parties to seek out newlydefined, quote unquote, conflicts. And recusal processes. This could be abusive to disqualify justices who may be unfavorable to the far left view, is specially on farleft cases. This bill, as currently written, risks undermining the independent integrity of the Supreme Court. Keith justice, john roberts, in his letter to chairman dermot dated april 25th included a quote, statement, on ethics, principles, and practices. This statement, undersigned by all the justices, reaffirms their commitment to upholding the integrity of the court. That should also be submitted for the record of this committee. This was signed by all sitting justices. I would also like to enter of already said that. This bill, if enacted, would bluntly insert politics into the Supreme Court. Eroding away the checks and bounces carefully crafted by our founders. This legislation may needlessly forces down a road towards constitutional crisis. Therefore, i am not in favor of regulations of this legislation, until we know whether the Supreme Courts own actions, taken on march the 7th, clarifying the disclosure. In other words, considering this legislation probably, even if it should be considered, a year or two until we find out how the new regulations find out. Just like each member of congress, and the white house, the Supreme Court has imposed across the ideological spectrum during the 1930s. Scholars had described the Supreme Court as the conservative court. Meanwhile, during the 50s and 60s of the 19 hundreds. The warren Supreme Court was much more liberal. Sunday this court will shift again. But, the actions being considered today are a result of a temper tantrum by the far left. The viking certain recent Supreme Court decisions and are unable to unilaterally ram their policy proposals through the congress. These efforts to hijack the Supreme Court must stop chief Justice Roberts in his concluding paragraph of biden versus nebraska cautioned against visceral reddick and baseless political hits against the court. Undoubtedly coming to a boil in the last several months. Robert, quote, has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinion to criticize the decision with which they disagree. As going beyond the proper role of the judiciary. The reasonable minds disagree with our analysis. At least three do. We do not mistake this heartfelt disagreement or disparagement. It is important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperceptions would be harmful to this institution and our core and our country. At the end of just robert statement. From june 21st in titled, quote, at six and the Supreme Court independents, and of quote. This article also highlighted the details some of the constitutionality, Judicial Independence and bounds of power concerns of these legislative principles foot for so far. I yield. Thank you, senator grassley. Senator grassley has asked that several documents be entered into the record. With unanimous consent, without objection, that will happen. I also ask unanimous consent to be entered into the letter of february 13th of 2012 signed by members of the senate including three senate members. Myself, senator whitehouse, and senator blumenthal. A white house of course addressed to chief Justice John Roberts an issue of the code of conduct and ethics for the Supreme Court. That date, again, february 13th 2012. Im going to recognize as a member seeking recognition and then we will move to amendments. Senator kennedy is on the list. Senator, you are next. Thank you, mister chairman. It would not be difficult, i, think to sit here and pick apart this legislature. I thank my democratic colleagues, i think they know that. There is not a dummy among them. There is not a dummy among this Judiciary Committee. But you dont have to be all over wendell scalia to figure out that this legislation is meant to be a court killing machine. For example, it would allow any jacqueline out there in america in a tinfoil hat who zone dog thinks there are a under not to file a motion to recuse a United States bring court justice. What could possibly go wrong . What could possibly go . Wrong my democratic colleagues know that. Im not gonna go to four down that road. Number two this bill is dangerous but it is not serious i think that some of my colleagues know that. They are trying to make a 0. 1 of the reasons im proud to be a senator is because i believe that every person in this body, democrat and republican, loves this country in the past their institution and wants to protect them. I say that because while i am upset with this bill, i would be more upset if my democratic colleagues who are trying to move it when they had the votes. They do not have the votes. You have the votes to get it out of here. But this is dead as a chicken, as dead as tragic an in the house. Maybe im naive but i believe in my heart of hearts that if you did have the votes and you could pass this bill we all know would destroy the United States Supreme Court as an institution, you wouldnt do it. Maybe im naive. It is still a dangerous bill. Final point look. This bill is not about ethics. We want to have a debate about ethics . Im ready. This bill as we all know this is about the case. The harvey case. Versus epa. We all know what to tell is. He even if youve never played poker you know what a tell is. I tell hims behavior that gives unintended information about what you really think there are plenty of tells on what this bill is really about. I still cannot get over, mr. , chairman that he said it. I still cant get over that schumer went to the steps of the United States Supreme Court and said the following. Im going to quote him, because it gives me chills of the wrong kind. Senator schumer said, quote, i want to tell you justice gorsuch, gorsuch. I want to tell you, gorsuch. I want to tell you, kavanaugh. You have released a whirlwind. You will pay the price. You wont know what you if you go forward with these awful decisions. Oh my god. Later the, next day, our colleague had a chance to fix these remarks on the senate floor. Here is what he said, quote, senator schumer said here, right here there would be political consequences political. Consequences for President Trump and senate republicans. If the Supreme Court with newly confirmed justices stripped away a womans right to choose. What bagatelle do you want . Some of my colleagues in my committee, as is the right, signed off on a brief to the united straits court. They are trying to persuade the court of the basis of logic from side to side and in a particular way. It is not supposed to be a political document. This is what some of my colleagues said in their brief. Quote, it is a another town. Quote, the Supreme Court this is in a brief to the United States Supreme Court. Quote, the Supreme Court is not well. The people know it. Perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the end points of politics. Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control. A nation desperately needs it to heal. That is what this bill is all about. I get it. You disagree with opinion of the United States Supreme Court. Will the senator yield for a question . Now, i will not. Im sorry if i could finish my thought. Senator,. I think that is the tell. I thought it was senator blumenthal. If i could just finish my thought, mister chairman. I get. It you disagree with the ruling. You disagree with dobbs. I get a. The answer is not going to destroy the Supreme Court. The senator yields for a question . I will. Now i get it. But, the way to change a ruling in the Supreme Courts go find the right case and persuade them. That is my final point. I appreciate your time. Now i will yield. The senator is aware that there was an assassination attempt on a sitting Supreme Court justice, Justice Kavanaugh, you are aware of that. Yes. Do you have an opinion on what the impact on an unstable mind might be when the majority leader of the United States Senate Stands up in front of the Supreme Court of the United States and makes a threat against the court . What the impact might be on an unstable mind . Im not a psychiatrist or psychologist but i think most with common sense and i think it would be extraordinary. All of this heated affix rhetoric, Clarence Thomas being an uncle tom, i mean, come on. I think it destroys the institution. Again, this bill aint gonna pass. I think we all know that. I still believe that my democratic colleagues if they had the boats wouldnt print to. It came down to it they wouldnt get rid of the filibuster. They wouldnt get rid of the bull they gave away enough power. I get why they have to advocate for but when it came down they wouldnt do it. All of this rhetoric has consequences. Political violence and furtherance in any causes unacceptable. That is the bipartisan committee, i have that is very clear. I have reportedly condemned all violence and threats of violence, or a guard in this weather comes on the right to left. Whether targets election workers, judges, even Supreme Court justices. Last year, Congress Passed the Supreme Court police parity act and the daniel judicial security and privacy act. These bills took important steps to protect the federal judiciary in their families. Including the justices of the Supreme Court. Protecting the judiciary has always been a bipartisan issue. That said, unfortunately, passage of the daniels Security Privacy act was delayed for nearly one year because of repeated objections by single senate republican, not a member of this committee. The Supreme Court ethics recusal and Transparency Act allows for both judicial transparency and security by including preventions preventing the disclosure of private or sensitive information. We can predict private individuals while also ensuring their performing their duties in an ethical manner. If no one else seeks recognition, the floor will be open for amendment. Senator cornyn . Thank you, mister chairman. I cannot improve on the statement of senator kennedy, but i do want to add a few thoughts before we get to the amendment process. I cannot help but believe that this is just another episode in a longStanding Campaign of intimidation and harassment of the Supreme Court and its members. Not that long ago we had a hearing where i played the video of justice Clarence Thomass confirmation hearing. He referred to the false attacks against him as a high tech lynching. The reason i thought it was important to play that is because that happened a long time ago. Many people may have forgotten or they may not know about the longStanding Campaign of harassment and intimidation against the court. The most recent one is the whirlwind threat by the majority leader of the United States senate. It didnt start there it started a long time ago just to scalia light to say that the United States is unique because of its independent judiciary. A lot of other countries have a parchment constitution. The Old Soviet Union had one that read pretty well on paper. Without an independent judiciary the rights and liberties of the people will not be preserved. They will be dictated by whoever happens to be in power at the time. Some of the threats against the judiciary are over, like the Senate Majority leader. Others are more subtle or kovar, like the letter sent by members of the Judiciary Committee asking to defund the Supreme Court of 10 million after the chief justice did not put into effect a public code about the three justices of the court. That is a threat and is not as bad as what senator schumer said, but it is a threat against the independence of the court. You do it my way or we are going to cut your budget. I dont think it is any secret that our Public Institutions are under assault. All of our Public Institutions. I would ask us to think just a moment about what this bill, and this campaign of harassment and intimidation directed towards the Supreme Court, what that is doing to Public Confidence in our independent judiciary. The most cherished and unique institutions. I used to be a judge for 13 years on the trial bench and the state Supreme Court. Total of 13 years of the judge. Judges have codes of ethics. Just like the senate has a code of ethics. Administered by and ethics committee. We all understand how that process works. I dare say that if the Supreme Court decided that they didnt like the ethics code, or the way the Senate Ethics committee administer that ethics code, if the Supreme Court sent a letter over criticizing it, suggesting changes, i dont think any of us will take that seriously. Conversely, the Supreme Court and the judiciary is a coequal branch of government. I cannot help but believe that this Long Campaign of intimidation and harassment is designed not to treat it as a coequal branch of government. Not to build and maintain Public Confidence in some of our most important institutions. Rather, to make it subservient to the will congress. It used to be that the organized bar, the american bar association, in my state to take Barr Association viewed it and their professional duty to defend the judiciary. Judges cannot. They cannot defend themselves. They are not a Political Branch of government. When someone attacked us, for our opinion, that is part of the bargain. We can take to the airwaves, take to the floor of the senate, take to social media, we can defend ourselves. But the Supreme Court and the judiciary cannot by the nature of their job. It falls to other responsible people to defend that institution. That unique institution which makes us different from, literally, the rest of the world. I have no doubt that senator kennedy eluded that this imperium court, this last year, had decided upon two cases the way that our folks on the democratic side it is right because their final. I bought that paraphrase. You get the point. Our colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle appear to be determined to cast the independent judiciary and the Supreme Court as just another Political Branch of office. That is why the talked about packing the Supreme Court at one point. Ruth Bader Ginsburg said if anything would make the courtly parties movie that. One side saying, when we are in power, we will in large number of judges and we will have more people to vote the way we want to do. That is ruth Bader Ginsburg. An icon among liberals and progressives. What i worry about from the standpoint of the United States senate, what do you think youre gonna happen when this shoe is on the other foot . What happens . We tend to think that the laws comment denominator. We tend to operate based on precedent. So, if the precedent is established here, you know what the temptation is going to be like . When the shoe is on the other foot . It may well prove to be irresistible. We saw that when harry reid decided that instead of 51 votes that were required to confirm a judge, all of a sudden the requirement was for 60. Our democratic colleagues filibustered judge after judge after judge. Well, it only took us ten years or so to turn that precedent around. I would appeal to our colleagues who care about this institution, among our other important institutions. What is being proposed here today its not just the code of ethics. The Supreme Court has won. The federal judiciary has one. It is not perfect, just like im sure there is a code of ethics that applies to senators and people may not like it. Our colleagues have suggested, for example, we eliminates ability of senators to trade in stocks, on the stock market, for example. That is a debate that we can have among ourselves, and we should our code of ethics isnt perfect either. We are not going to welcome the idea of the Supreme Court sending us over a checklist of things that we should change as a coequal branch of government. I dont think we are going to change a lot of minds here because the Political Forces have lined up either you are opposed to some of the decisions that the Supreme Court has made recently or you accept them i think we all should be in the posture of accepting them even if we dont like them that is the price we pay for an independent judiciary. That is why justices have a lifetime tenure that why justices salaries cannot be reduced during the term of office. I think our founders are rolling in their graves. They see how much the United States senate and some of its leaders, including the majority leaders have engaged in this Long Campaign of intimidation, harassment, undermining Public Confidence in one of the most important institutions and our government. We have two member who sought recognition senator feinstein, senator lee senator feinstein . This bill, i believe, is going to strengthen the ethical standard Financial Disclosure requirements and repassed that improve the core and some of the ways im going to try to express. The Supreme Court, today, is the only federal court in the country that is not governed by code of ethics. Currently, when Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from a case, they are not required to explain how or why they are accusing themselves. This bill would strengthen the ethical standards, Financial Disclosure requirements and recusal requirements that apply to Supreme Court justices. These changes include adopting a code of conduct for justices and establishing procedures to receive and investigate complaints of judicial misconduct this bill will establish important ethical standards it given a chance. Supreme Court Justices related to their Financial Disclosures and decisions whether to work you from hearing a case. This bill is in line with efforts to improve efforts and disclosures and all federal governments to ensure trust in our democratic system. The bill is not expected to have bipartisan support, unfortunately. I hope it does. I look at this as a major, major, boat. For me and for improvements on this body. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you senator feinstein. Senator lee . I think it is easy for us to take for granted and overlook the extent to which we have all benefited from living in a country that operates under the rule of law. In order to have the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of individual men and women who serve within a government, you really have to have some kind of structural protection in place. Protecting the people against their risks, with devastating consequences, associated with the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few. It was for this reason that some of our leading legal thinkers, including 12 years ago when i first arrived in the senate and came on to this committee, within a few months or so of my arrival we had a couple of Supreme Court justices visit. Justice breyer in just a scalia came to talk about the courts. Our colleague then from time to time. It was something i hadnt seen before. I had seen them do this rodeo exercise the two of them would play off each other. Sometimes telling jokes and each others expense but always in a goodnatured way it. With during one of these visits when Justice Collier said something that stuck with me. He referred to the fact that, along the lines of what senator cornyn was just describing a moment ago, a lot of countries there is a constitution. They might even be written on a single document like ours is. It might even contain a bill of rights. It looks really good. It protects most or often of the individual liberties that our bill of rights seeks to protect. In some cases even list more protection than ours does. But, as Justice Scalia explained at the time, any tin horn dictator anywhere in the world can have a bill of rights. That bill of rights can look really good. Ive never understood what the difference between a tin horn dictator is an irregular dictator, he didnt explain. Hes no longer here for me to ask. Him. But his point was clear. A lot of countries, including and especially those with tyrannical governments, have bills of rights. What he said next intrigued me. What differentiates a bill of rights that mean something from one that doesnt . It is a mechanism by which you can separate out. Or allow power to check power. Thus protect the people from the dangers associated with the excessive accumulation of power. In the few. A. A lot of this is really a independent judiciary. A court system that stands separate, detached, from the political operation of that government. Now, in our system, of course, we have the three branches. We happen to refer to our branch, the legislative branch, together with the executive branch. Headed by the president. We need town but to Political Branches. By calling them that we differentiate them from the court. The court, although it is populated by people who have to go through the political process, have been nominated by the president , confirmed by the senate, once they are put in place, on good behavior, they remain there. For the rest of their lives. Absent other circumstances. It really is and essential part of having an independent judiciary. And without the independent judiciary, there can be no rule of law. It is easy to overlook all the benefits that we reap every single day at a result of that. We are known throughout the entire world of the country where the rule of law is a thing. If you enter into a contract, there will be a mechanism by which the terms of that contract can be fairly interpreted and enforced, enforceable, in a court of law. One of the reasons why countries from, businesses from countries all of the world want to do business in america. Theyre looking to invest overseas. They may not want to invest as much in some other countries as they do the United States. In fact, they almost never would prefer when faced with the choice between the United States and around the country. In many circumstances, in many industries, they would rather do business in the United States, if they can, in part for this reason. We have all benefited economically, and otherwise, as a result of this. This system is not free. It is not self perpetuating unless we consciously, deliberately, she used to protect it. Protected we must. You can break it. This is legislation a solution looking for a problem. It is solution looking for a problem, carried out in such a way that can make a whole lot of things a lot worse. That would, in fact, accomplish something very different than the lofty description that youre hearing from its supporters today. Look, if the sponsors of this bill, and those who planned to support it, if they were truly interested and ethics and integrity within the Supreme Court of the United States. I think they wouldve conducted this debate, this inquiry, in a very different way from the beginning. I think we would be seeing some of those differences. I think all of those that it is important to recognize that the Supreme Court of the United States does, in fact, have ethical standards it does, in fact, have its own ethics rules that it supervise, is it overseas we do in fact have a conference you will hear from the bills monsters they are not nearly good enough they are lax they are basically a post apocalyptic hull from unethical you point. This is utterly false it is untrue. Objective lee untrue. It is slanderous. It is to undermine the credibility and the reputation, institutionally speaking, on the court. And its justices. I correct myself, i should say some of the justices. I will get back to that in the moment. They do, in fact, have ethical standards. Me in many meaningful respects, those standards not only matchup to those that we follow. In some meaningful ways they exceed those that are relying on the members of the United States senate. For example, in the United States senate we do not have the same recusal standard that they do. One can be, i dont know, a soybean farmer. Or a tobacco farmer. And a member of the United States senate. You get so vote on bells related to subsidies her soybeans, or regulatory issues associated with tobacco. We do not have recusal standards there. There are other differences. But this is important to highlight. Its an important with the role that we play a breath of the row that they play. It doesnt matter, it is not adequate. All is breaking news over there. It is just not true. It is, deliberately, or at least recklessly i think deliberately, deceptive. Look, the thing wouldve really played out differently if the sponsors of this legislation are truly interested in it in an evenhanded way. Enhancing integrity at the Supreme Court, there are glaring instances in which there have been activities undertaken by justices ruth Bader Ginsburg, justice saundra sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and others they raised serious questions under the rules and standards that currently exist. Notwithstanding those in all of those examples, with one glaring exception, i do not think there are any of us in here who would credibly maintain or contend any of those things. Any of those issues related to the democratically appointed justices i just mention. Or two republicans. None of those things. Amounting to something that could, or would, or should, result in impeachment, removal, criminal prosecution or Something Like that if those things are right, there are remedies to do. That there are ways to remove justice engaged in a high level of wrongdoing. That is not on the table here. This is part of why i maintained the belief that this is a solution in search of a problem. It is a solution that would cause a lot of other problems. The solution that they propose is one that would completely remake, reinvent, the Supreme Court. It would reinvent the litigation strategies that go into handling cases before the Supreme Court you see . If a person can just, i filing a document, or making an accusation, trigger a review panel of a Lower Court Judges, whose rulings it is the Supreme Courts job to review. In many instances, rivers. It wont be long if it is before it will be considered malpractice. To fail, to try to figure through these aggressive mechanisms. A recusal. And to cast even more doubt on the credibility and institutional reputation of the Supreme Court of the United States. I think that is very unfortunate. It really will change the game. In some circumstances where this to become law, they would have succeeded. Especially in a politically charged case. They would figure out a way at one of these panels getting the lower court judge to look at the recusal of this or that justice in order to inflict their own carefully designed Supreme Court for that moment. You know, when lawyers go to trial, they go through the process of jury selection. Most parts of the country, i dont really understand the difference in pronunciation got in texas they do things their own way. Each side gets their own opportunity to object to each juror. There are two kinds of challenges to a wouldbe member of the jury panel. You have for cause challenges. You can challenge someone for cause, you know . Potential juror knows the defendant, or the plaintive. The prosecution, defense. Has some kind of conflict that either side can challenge that. And have that person removed from the jury panel. But the other kind of challenge is what we call peremptory challenge. You can remove a small handful of jurors for almost any reason. Or, no reason at all. Seems to me that this legislation would, in effect, treat the Supreme Court justices, approach them, in almost the same way one might approach a potential jerry. Attorneys having the opportunity to remove individual justices. Ones whom they might consider problematic for their particular case. At the end of the day we look back at the fact that almost none of these instances really rise to the level of criminal wrongdoing or, impeachment and removal. I dont see it, its not there. Not from the democratic appointees, not from the republican appointees. I do, however, c one. If you can wrap up we have the other Committee Meeting now. Understand that. I have things to say on this. We have always allowed our members to speak. I want all members at the chance to do that. I just i will wrap up with all deliberate speed. Im getting to that in just a moment. There is one exception. One allegation which has come to life fairly recently with regard to the late justice, ruth Bader Ginsburg. I disagree with many of Justice Ginsburgs rulings, there is someone for whom ive long had deep respect. There are some very serious allegations that have recently come to light ive recently become aware of. The fact that she received a 1 Million Dollar reward that went unreported. I am still reserving assessment as to exactly what to make of that. But i would say, we might have some very significant ramifications if she were still serving on the court. If you are still. Alive that might lead to something. Even there i feel unable to qualify. That i did not yet know all the facts. Those have not yet all come to. Like we do not yet know exactly what was done with that. Whether she carried out the apparent intention or the stated purpose of a debt at the outset to donate to charity. There is a lot we do not know. There but that is an example of something that could be more significant. The other thing that we are talking about are not things for which anyone could credibly maintain is the stuff of impeachment and removal. So, look, ive got colleagues on this committee on the democratic side who like to talk a lot about dark money. Dark money on the right. But let me tell you a little bit of a liberal dark money is funding these activists fifth use. Underlying this legislation and the perceived need for it in the left, its written by a republican. Well also funding the activist groups calling for Court Packing. But and supporting this legislation openly, actively, aggressively gunning for it. This is the same but publishes hit pieces on Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. While simultaneously turning a blind eye to other conduct from those justices, were appointed by democrats. Even and especially a 1 million 1 awards given to a democratically appointeds justice. But look. Well these charts details from us at the foundation launched by propublica but is the Sandler Foundation rather launched propublica and remained propublicas largest donor but now, the Sandler Foundation was also found the Campaign Legal center and the american constitutions of study, the industry is acf. Both organizations publicly call for the investigation of justice shortly after propublicas safeties. On Justice Thomas woo. These hit pieces sided experts from the Campaign Legal center and from casey s. The Sandler Foundation also gave money that mirabel advisers new venture quotes and earmarked for demand justice. It which as many in this room and no one organization that advocates for Court Packing by and what has openly and aggressively called for Justice Thomass resignation from the court. But the silicone Valley Community foundation gave money to propublica and citizens for responsibility in washington or crew. Crew scintillated to Justice Thomas calling on him to resign. But the marcell Foundation Also gave money to propublica and a crew. George soross foundation to promote down today to propublica in the Campaign Legal center and crew. What so william barr and we were foundation is given to propublica, Campaign Legal center, american constitutional, Study Alliance for justice and the courts. But actually they foundations found it isnt over popular democracy. Both organizations call for Supreme Court reforms in propublicas reporting. I will close with winding back for just a moment. The whirlwind quote. What was that whirlwind . What was truck schumer saying on the Supreme Court, of the United States steps that . Stay on the steps of the court, we will unleash the whirlwind. You want no wait to hear. Gorsuch, kavanaugh, actually i think he just said gorsuch and kavanaugh. Leaving out their child. What was it . But it was a whirlwind the guy who traveled to grace distance and arrived at night . I saw the home of Justice Kavanaugh . Was that the whirlwind . Was the whirlwind the blatant recusal we to enforce 15 07 . As against those terrorizing sometimes daily often weekly or on some other semi regular basis. But the families of Supreme Court justices, by protesting outside their homes. Allowing those protests to take place. And then refusing to enforce federal law and make them unlawful today the home of the Supreme Court justice. Was that these attacks imputing the credibility and characters of a lifetime, to build reputations for themselves reflecting on the court of credibility and fairness . Perhaps that was a whirlwind. This is part of that world went. And we must defeat it. Thank you. Thank, you senator lee. In defense of ruth Bader Ginsburg who cannot defend herself, she disclosed 1 Million Dollar were warned that she was donating it to charity. I might also add any provisions for supply equally to every Single Member of the Supreme Court, whether they are appointed by a democrat or your public in, conservative or liberal. Now, were gonna consider amendments. Senator graham unbelievably First Amendment. But yeah. Thank, you mr. Chairman i have an amendment that is building off whats nearly said. But section 15 07 of our venerable crowd makes this crime but to pick it and go to homes. But the Supreme Court officials are judges, its weird to keep the probiotic emanated the rest. I think all of us on this Committee Just 23, 89 to know is the amendment. A salesman 3892. So i remember very devoutly the protesters came to my house, somebody broke a window. Not an unpleasant experience. I appreciate the capitol hill police. Helping me out there. But all of those problems where people come to your homes during the kavanaugh and other events. Its uncomfortable and i know weve got some members here with small children. But its got to be a better way. So so can 15 07 is on the book. Its a clearly said, very organized effort to intimidate the justices. Somewhat small children. Basically, nothing of into anybody. You can be sympathetic to their cause, but we should also enforce the law no matter how we feel about the cause. No matter how i feel about what youre doing, i dont want anybody to go to your house and break your window. No matter how you feel about your legislative agenda, i dont want anybody to threaten you and your family. Thats just not good for the country. But theres amendment will allow the Supreme Court to plead to have a limited authority but to investigate violations of section 15 07. But the Justice Department for some odd reason basically gave everybody a pass. But and i can only imagine how uncomfortable it was for these justices, some with small children, having to endure this. So the Supreme Court has a police force designed to protect them on the ground and it does not have limited jurisdiction. The point is i am glad the Supreme Court has its own police force. Things like now more than ever but. I would like to have an amendments to amend and allow the Supreme Court to investigate violations of section 15 07. A statute designed to be in their homes. Before recognizing other members advice, i would like to ask this amendment add responsibility to the Supreme Court police. Which i believe you said. Asking them with investigating in violations of the federal probation on picketing with the intent of interfering with the administration of justice are administration ever. Duties judicial security has consistently been bipartisan. As i mentioned, earlier we passed legislation to protect the federal judiciary and our families. Including justices of the Supreme Court. And here, the Supreme Courts visit by an estimated visitors around the world. The Supreme Court police are responsible for protecting the visitors as well as the justices. And their staff. Expanding their responsibility is to invest in picketing and protesting but they stretch their resources beyond the current assignment. I dont know how much it will cost our weather will be signed. Currently it is a responsibility of the department of, the fbi and local Law Enforcement to do that. To move the responsibility to the Supreme Court police and raise these questions about the capability and resources. We can all agree that judicial security is of the utmost importance. Its one another issue completely different. It is about protecting the reputation of the Supreme Court. By ensuring that the justice creighton forcible code of conduct. But if my republican colleagues will draw in my concern about protecting the justices, but it would be refreshing to join democrats in supporting the appropriations legislations that fund to Supreme Court security. This was the year 2023, it will contain millions of dollars. Such funding can unfortunately a southern republican members of this committee will be going through this bill to provide i urge my colleagues to oppose this non germane amendment. Thank, you miss chairman. If i may i would imagine that some of the members of this committee voted against the appropriations bill. Just for that reason. Thats what happens when you, at the end of the, air through everything in a big pot. So you cant have a normal process. So, it puts a lot of remembers a bad spot. And i am hoping will go to the Appropriations Committee here in a minute and trying to clean up that mess. But heres what im saying. The systems fail. The system designed to protect justices at their homes failed. The department of justice failed. The people in charge of enforcing the law under 15, aside in my view, failed. I am not taking power away from them. And trying to get power to the police, to protect the Supreme Court and investigate the intimidation of the court and their homes. I regret that im having to do this because i never thought i would have to do this. If you do not see the failure than you are blind. The people who came to the pick of these justices as a desire to intimidate and make their lives miserable. And we have laws on the book preventing that. Nobodys been held accountable, so lets allow the Police Department has direct authority over the protection of the Supreme Court, the power to investigate, and if they need more money to hire investigators, i am sure they can find a way to do that. The idea that this is giving the power to investigate the examination of justices in their homes, somehow makes justice less fake, makes no sense. None. The reason im doing this is because the system failed. We need to change that system. Mister chairman, senator klobuchar. Thank, you mister chairman. Im going to vote no. The amendments i believe is not germane to the issue of the Supreme Court having been addressed in this bill. It would give the Supreme Court police the authority to investigate the federal crimes it is already the jurisdiction of the United States to partner justice, which could greater restriction or concerns. The department in the fbi already have a responsibility for investigating these crimes. Thank, you senator klobuchar. Mister chairman and i have for this issue and for the fact that we are not doing enough when it comes to security and im pleased about the bill that we have passed. We need to do more. I think that many people in this room have noted and have some pretty bad experiences with security. I am wellknown simply because it is not what we are focused on today. Which is the of the justices and trying to put some ethical rules in place that i wish very much of the court clearly to some enforcement mechanism. I think we all know this isnt the First Time Congress has stepped in to make sure that our government officials behave ethically but im happy to work with my colleagues in the future because i believe we have neglected our own security as well as others and no one does anything when we have our own security and for those of us that dont we get stuck with it. Thank, you senator. Wells juicy recognition . I do i hope to just make a comment about the bill undoing the context of this amendment. Ill be brave. I listen very carefully to some of the very important concerns of my colleagues. On the republican side. Which they raised about the independence of the judiciary. In separation of powers. The politicization. Those are all things are great concern to me. They will allow really matters. But i kind of took a poll from the more moderate to live under thrown and checked with some of. Neighbors i asked a simple question. Do you think that a justice should be required, if they receive private airplane travel and vacations, we require to disclose but . They looked at me like that was the weirdest question they had ever heard and they did not answer it. They asked me a question. They said, they can do that . Seriously . And i did not have an answer to that. So the higher the bill, here is about disclosing something that the vast majority of the people we represent, all of us, thank you not be done in the first place. So disclosure is the baron minimum. And that has to apply to anybody who is a judge appointed by glenn or trump or biden. Everybody should have that obligation. So this is the minimum. It has, in my view, very important implications for trying to restore credibility to the Supreme Court. Which is not held in high regard right now. Its a disappointment to me to see the failure of the chief justice to not act, and essentially put this in the court of this senate Judiciary Committee. I yield back. Questions on the adoption says wells, somebody who was able in march and april of this year, the Supreme Court, they dealt with this issue. Never required disclosures. Private planes, et cetera. Theyve already done this. Questions on the adoption of the grain amendment, as oil to 3892 mr. Whitehouse . Its klobuchar . Mr. Putin . No mr. Blumenthal . No. Mr. Im enough . No. Mr. Booker . No by proxy. Mr. Mr. Wells . Mr. I. Mr. Aye by proxy. Mr. Lee . I. Mr. Aye by proxy. [inaudible] i bet proxy. Mrs. Blackburn . Mr. Urban . No. [inaudible] the emirates is not agreed to. Any further measures will come before the committee. , mr. Airman mr. Manley of 61 amendments that i know of. We can do it anyway would like. Seniority of people can be recognized. But i do believe that every amendment deserves to be debated and voted upon. I think another comment would you like to offer a moment . Senator cornyn. Chairman, id like to call my amendment, oh well ill 23707. This would expand the right to carry a firearm pro federal judges, so they can protect themselves. Many of us back in texas and stacey have gone to the process of getting a concealed firearm license. Because im concerned particularly with the increasing crime and attack of Public Officials and threats against Public Officials. They need to be in a position to defend themselves should they choose to do so. I have already talked about the highprofile threat and attacks against Justice Kavanaugh. Of course, i know theres also been a recent killing of a retired Wisconsin State Court judge, by a criminal who previously sentenced him. And of course, we have also considered the tragic death of their son in 2020. Ive heard from a lot of judges, not just on the Supreme Court but across the country, who are reporting more more threats of violence against them. Judges should be able to protect themselves. And there are winds on their family members, anytime and anywhere. Whether or not a Police Officer answers a 911 call in the timely basis. My amendment would allow those federal judges you choose to do so the authority a to go on the same terms as qualified Law Enforcement officers do now. This is particularly important as federal judges go to and from their federal courthouse and traveler even run errands in a neighborhood and i urge my colleague to support the amendment. Thank, you so theyre foreman. I understand theres nothing to stop a federal judge from going out with state and local law. I know this is an attempt to state and local. The point is this would make under federal law, which would branch or structures of the state and local level. Does that require a Training Course . When that is voluntary by the judge. Well, if it raises theyve been raised their whole lives using firearms. Id rather use them safely store them appropriately. I think we trust them with our constitution, we should trust them with the priority. Nothing in the current law the prohibits a judge from applying for a concealed carry torment where to permit wherever he happens to harry. I had all of this is a federal preemption. Each state has a different approach to this. I certainly wonder why we were to take this up at this moment. When we are considering protecting the reputation of the court. Because of the overt attacks but the majority leader of the United States senate and others. The chairman, he appointed that appropriately we have responded with Additional Resources for Law Enforcement. For the members of the court, asunder lee because i wasnt sure there was a case. Apparently there are protective details but with the justices now but historically this is not been true. They have basically been on their own and ad hoc basis when the request of the u. S. Marshal service to provide them with assistance but the promise that the Supreme Court like many other Public Officials are subject to threats and potential attacks against that person or their families nothing isnt out but. And youll see recognition on this amendment . If not mister chairman this amendment like the previous amendments are among a number of amendments over 65 our public and colleagues which have nothing as far as i can see to deal with the quarterbacks on the Supreme Court. So now suddenly we are dealing with amendments that would allow justices and judges to carry guns and what does that have to do with the code of ethics of the Supreme Court . I just didnt hit listening i listening to my republican colleagues malign our motives as to what we are attempting to deal with something as i thought as common sense as requiring the Supreme Court to abide by a quarterback thinks we as all of our other judiciary members have to abide by one, what is so hard to understand about that . In the meantime, there are other amendments that have to do with our code of ethics and the executive branch behavior and members of the Judiciary Committee. I dont know what that has to do with the matter and the bill before so i just like to say that anderson what ive already said, first of all it is not productive to push down the motives of those of us who sit here and who are saying that he has court in the land should be serving an example. In terms of abiding by a code of ethics. So we do know often see georges, sitting judges weighing in on the need for the Supreme Court have a code of ethics. I would like to ask the unanimous percent to have just michael ponds ors article which was a guest essay in the New York Times dated july 14th 2023, and when she says but yes, does the Supreme Court realize how bad and in the context of the various disclosures it raises a lot of eyebrows but, for the three private airplane travels and u. S. The supplies to republican and democratic nominees. Of Supreme Court justices. In the end of his article, he says although the exact numbers fluctuates because of agencies, the core of our federal judiciary surprises roughly 540 straight judges and 670 district judges and 180 Appeals Court judges and ninth justices, fewer than 1500 men and women in a country of more than 330 Million People and 3. 8 million square miles and much depends on this small cohort accurate sense of smell which is instinctive and uncompromising integrity and is the appearance of integrity. Must harmon . Ill be voting against this and other matters which have nothing to do with what is before us which is the code of ethics for the Supreme Court. Objection the article referred to by some of the Ronald Reagan added to the records for senator graham. I like to respond to my colleague from hawaii. The point were trying to make is that were not questioning the motives but reading what you said. But we are putting this in context of a broader picture. But the majority leader of the United States senate went with us to the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened and as much as you can literally threaten somebody. There has been an effort on your side to expand the Supreme Court and do away with the conservative majority and there is a pattern here of trying to diminish and demonize and neuter the court know if you read the bill you are supporting but this bill is a complete chronicle of thoughts on how the court operates. By congressional statute. Writing the system that senator leahy describes that would make it very easy to make an allegation of a conflict of interest and have a panel of judges not just the individual judge decide the merits of it. But fundamentally changes the recusal system. At the end of the day i think it is literally a remaking of the court design to dilute the power that exists today of the Supreme Court for political purposes. And this cannot be viewed and isolation. Justice ginsburg all of americans in miami including me. She got 1 Million Dollars and im not suggesting that she took the money. And as you give it away. But you will tell us who she gave it away too. And theyre still wont. She signed the pinion, the Virginia Miller institute bmi case. Of all we going to support in school, she signed a copy of that opinion and got auctioned off by the National Organization womans Legal Defense fund. But so all im saying, and the court everywhere, i have not born this committee with the travel schedule of all the justices during the summer and i dont begrudge them for doing that. And wish i could go to some of these places because the bottom line is but i am not begrudging that. You are trying to destroy this court. And this bill is part of a process so yes. We view this in a broader context. These amendments have everything to do about protecting the court. Americans watched on television an organized effort to go to Supreme Court justices homes for this desire purpose of ruining their lives and intimidating their families and not a dam thing happened about it. Yes that is to me relevant. Whether a judge should have a carry a gun or not if they want to they should be. The bottom line here is that this is relevant. And we will look at this and a broader perspective. And that perspective i think we are trying to articulate pretty well is a concerted effort which has been going on for years. To marginalize and destroy this court. But. Mister chairman this is a recall the vote. I sense my colleagues directly addressing the i would like to say that if theres anybody that has been spending decades trying to put on to the Supreme Court kind of people have an ideological agenda than i would say that it is the very dredges and the justices that my colleague is supporting. And so again i would say that we are a confronted with a Supreme Court then in terms of recusal for example, they get to decide individually whether or not the winter cues themselves. How easily you can have a Supreme Court justice who does not recuse himself with his wife when he is involved with the very issues that are before him . I would say about those kinds of examples but really raised a question of why shouldnt the Supreme Court have a code of ethics . As those kinds of provisions apply to everybody else. By the, way we have a kind of ethics in the senate. This is our code of ethics. And why shouldnt the Supreme Court has the highest court in the land, when you talk about intimidating the court, how do you intimidate the court that gets to these cases and reversed cases are took it decades long decisions and theres nothing we can do about it. The concept remains of citing the majority leader and so my view. I what is compelling is a need for this or whatever couldve, alex thank, you mister chairman. Senator cornyn, mr. , chairman i would like to just direct but the senator from hawaii for the United States courts website. As a code of conduct for u. S. Judges. Who says they dont have a code of conduct and they need one. Congress has to impose it on them. That is just factually incorrect. But the senators question what is the relevance of providing a judge an opportunity to defend themselves and their families, and what is the relevance of that to the long Standing Campaign of intimidation and harassment but . Recently rising to the crest of the majority leaders, three members of the court by name. Whats the relevance of self to spent defense for that . Its because there are unstable lines out there. When they say Public Officials accuse eyeing members of the court. Over our full conduct, they will respond to that in the case of Justice Kavanaugh. Theyre able to interdict the person who tried to kill them. I think the Justice Kavanaugh and every judge defending themselves, if other defenses are not available. Correctly related to the campaign of intimidation. And harassment. And attempts to politicize the court. Mister chairman, id like as a refusal standard, they make that decision. Thats how it always works, power should work. No different in that regard. But we also have way decision up to, us as to whether to recuse the differences. There is no legal expectation requirements that we do. So that you have one. Thank you. Caution on the adoption of the amendment allowed 23707. But the court calls. Why no. [inaudible] the moment is not a great, to any further amendments mister chairman, i would like to call up a minute exile to 3875. Senator can you please explain the amendments . Thank, you mr. Tremendous deals with a link of the dobbs opinion. To so many in tennessee it is really a low point of the court. Confidentiality and trust of the court, this is something weve talked about a good bet. How important that is, if it is deliberative process. Justice thomas said, when you lose that trust to changes the institution fundamentally. And that lead really put a spotlight on the efforts of some from the left, pushing forward their agenda. They went so far as to accuse Justice Alito of leaking the draft. And the American People knew that that was an likely. Clearly its not just harm Public Confidence in the court, it literally made the justices target. A target of the assassination, children, becoming targets. No member of the u. S. Senate should be okay. With that type of targeting of our justices. And this amendment is simple. Since it seems that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle a intent on pushing through this effort to delegitimized the Supreme Court, my amendment delays the implementation of this bill until the dogs is identified and publicly disclosed. This ought not to be and mister chairman, even yourself in january you sat, and im gonna quote here, you the lead of the majority draft opinion was an unacceptable breach of the Supreme Court confidentiality and trust. Im gonna urge my colleagues to go on this amendment. Thank, you senator. This woman will tie the date for the recusal and transparent say on the person who leaked the draft decision and dobbs is identify them publicly disclosed. I hope we can all agree as we said earlier that the league of a majority draft opinion was unprecedented. And in defensively breach of Supreme Court confidence deliberation . However, i am disappointed that the Supreme Court on investigations ordered by the chief Justice Roberts and to the breach fails to uncover the source of the league. Im especially disappointed that the u. S. Investigation did not include sworn interviews for the justices themselves. This is the one who ever possibly personally stopped short of asking for sworn statements by the justices themselves. If anything this highlights a need for more independent oversight of the court. No, ever this amendment will do nothing to address this failure. Arduously failure of the crisis of Public Confidence in the court. Justices will not given sworn statements can withhold those statements. Whether theyre implicated or not. They go unresolved as what the source of that break was. As long as it is the case, the code of ethics in the Supreme Court, mister chairman, it makes perfect sense. That we withhold this with this information. This is something that we want to know, it is something to see American People want to know. We should hold this bill even if it is signed into law. It would not be implemented until we find out who is the leader and but the issue is resolved. This shoe is on the blackburn amendment, 2375. But excuse, me now. [inaudible] [inaudible] mr. Lee . I. Mr. Halle. Mr. Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Phyllis. Mrs. Blackburn. I. Carbon . No. [inaudible] mister chairman. They blackburn about a moment is not a great two. Mister chairman, i would call up an amendment, as ill see three 85. I say all 23885. This amendment would simply condemn the racist things that have been said about justice Clarence Thomas. Anyone sequel condition on this amendment . Senator kennedy, this is safe to say that you condemn all racist comments and attacks upon all justices . Sure. You would not include the other African American justices on the court . [inaudible] if they say their will agree to put that and to the amendments, we can accept it. Happy to change, or you say . To be, clear senator, when you are talking about simply saying that we condemn racism against any justice, but he will only but one justice in . Thats right. I dont understand the reluctance to accept the fact that justice Clarence Thomas, who happens to be a black man, has been the butt i have some discussions. How can you not condemn the statement calling justice Clarence Thomas a house slave . Come on, folks. Thats all this amendments does. Does anybody here supports that kind of rhetoric . I, dont i dont think you do. This kind of rhetoric has not been directed towards john roberts, it hasnt been directed towards legal gorsuch. And has been directed towards Clarence Thomas. And it is an american. It is unconscionable. And i cant believe we would not condemn it. I dont care how many lawyers can dance on the head of a pan. Dont try to pretend that this is some sort of a technical mistake in this amendment . Its not complicated. You dont have to be a senior figure it out. It says all of this stuff about Clarence Thomas calling him a house slave and other racist disgusting statements that we condemn. You either condemn it or you dont. Thats all this amendment does. If i may, respond after one do you condemn that sort of rhetoric. The senators amendment does more than that. It calls upon the Biden Administration to enforce section 14 07 from the total 18 United States code to protect Supreme Court justices included Justice Thomas in flagrant violation of the law designed to intimidate justices. We spent a lot of time in his committee trying to make sure that the white house and the political side of the executive branch is kept out of internal department of justice Law Enforcement decisions. In the light of, i get asked my colleagues to vote know unless there is a seconddegree moment that here clears that problem. Mister chairman mister chairman. Other respect to my colleague, senator he is better than nia counting the number of lawyers that condensed in the head of the pen. This is a real supplemental. If you support racist things that have been said about Clarence Thomas then vote against this amendment. If you think the things that have been set up a Clarence Thomas are racist to the morale, and you condemn them, then vote for this amendment. Someone else, senate early . I support this wholeheartedly. I find it difficult to understand, how someone can oppose an amendment whose sole purpose is to condemn racist slurs, used repeatedly, publicly, and viciously against one Supreme Court justice. Now yes, other things have been said about other justices. Thats true. Other things have been said about other justices on both sides of the aisle. Justice thomas is unique on the court. To my knowledge, the only current member of the court whos been attacked racially, even supposedly polite society. Attacked by Television News personality, using the same racist terms. I find it difficult to understand why anyone would object to sending that message. Now as to the second objection, i also find it very difficult to understand why someone who would oppose this, weve already established there is nothing objectionable me about wanting away, and seen these things happen, that they should be retracted, and they should never occur again. Knowing your an objection me, based on the additional fact that this amendment calls in the Biden Administration to enforce mcgahn 18 usc, section 1807. The same for evil attacks, invariably, and with groups like the kind of activities outside of justices homes that leave them in a physically vulnerable position me with their personal safety and security being threatened and violated. Me theres nothing about this that says exactly what enforcement action has to take place, and exactly at what location, and what moment. Theres nothing in this that doesnt take away a degree of discretion on the part of Law Enforcement officers. The truth, is this is not being enforced at the homes of the justices. It isnt. We know that its not. We know that decision is deliberate because of the leaked internal memorandum by our senator of alabama, receive them from a whistleblower. So we know that their beat instructed not to enforce this in the home to the justices. I find it almost impossible to understand how someone would object to this amendment, either on this basis, or any other. Senator cruz. Mister chairman. Two arguments have been launched against this amendment. The first argument is, gosh, maybe there have been racist thing set against other justices. I will point out objectively the venom and bigotry directed at Clarence Thomas, qualitatively different from any of the other justices. This gives multiple instances of elected democrats. They are currently in office, long chain racial epithets with complete im unity. This is how representative of mississippi, a democrat member of congress, called Justice Thomas a, quote, uncle tom. It cites how just a week ago, the current city in Minnesota Attorney general, and democrat, disgustingly likened Justin Thomas to a health lay from the film, django unchained. A particularly vicious and loathsome character from that movie. If the chairman wishes to 0. 2 instances of any elected official using racial epithets before the other eight justices, i will help fully condemn it. Im not aware of it. Might there be some lunatic on twitter who said something . Sure, there are idiots on twitter. These are not fringe characters. This is a senior democrat in the house of representative who refuses to apologize. This is the current attorney general in the state of minnesota. So everyone should understand, look, i expect a Party Line Vote on this. I expect all the democrats to say, no. But understand, everyone watching this, will interpret that quite rightly to say you agree that these kinds of racial insults of Justin Thomas are perfectly acceptable. Justice kennedy said he assumed the democrats denounced the statements. I have to say, i havent heard any member of this committee denounced what he said. I havent heard anyone call keith elissa retracted apology. The democratic attorney general of minnesota, i havent heard about this. The second argument given was the argument given by senator whitehouse. He says, well, the part that is offensive of this is that it calls in the department of justice to enforce the law. Just stop and repeat that to yourself again. So it is now the position of democrats, it is unacceptable to ask the department of justice to enforce the law. It is an existing criminal statute from 16 07 that makes it a federal crime to protests at the home of a justice with the purpose of intimidating them. This department of justice refuses to enforce the law. I will say, with the argument being made by democrats right now, it reveals the whole game. The reason the biden, Justice Department occur north federal law wont prosecute the criminals who are trying to intimidate and threaten Supreme Court justices is because the Biden Administration supports that criminal threat. The reason now that Judiciary Committee democrats are being told, vote no on senator kennedys bill, is because Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee support that violent threatening of justice. This bill is not about ethics its about a double standard apply to. Justices with whom democrats disagree. It is designed to delegitimized the court. It is applied rules that are not applied to liberal justices like stephen ryan, ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor who have committed contact virtually identical to that of Justice Thomas. The democrats on this committee are mad at the Supreme Court because its issued decisions based on the constitution that are inconvenient for the political agenda of democrats. Look, were defined by the votes we make here. If every democrat happily votes no, understand that you are telling your constituents that you think its perfectly fine to call a Supreme Court justice, and you cant muster up the courage to say, thats beyond the line. Will you yield the question . Happily. Will you read one more time, for the record, that statement about Justice Thomas, and who made it . On july 13th, 2023. Minnesota attorney general, the current City Attorney general, offensively like a Justice Thomas to a house slave from the film django unchained. By the way, there is a long pattern of that, on april 27, 2014. Democrat representative, Benny Thompson in mississippi, again another sitting democrat member of congress, used a racially charged language to characterize Justice Thomas, including calling him an uncle tom. Ill point out also, recently, february 14th 2023, Georgia State senator, emmanuel jones, used similar racially charged language to characterize Justice Thomas, including by calling him an uncle tom figure. The choice democrats have to make, do you think its all right . To call a justice who dares disagree with you and uncle tom. I think its bigoted. Perhaps democrats hold themselves to a different standard. Let me respond. We condemn racist attacks of any kind, for many sources. Elected or an elected. We have had members, current members of the United States senate, who have had to apologize publicly for the statements they have made involving an issue of race. We should not compromise on that integrity of that principle, regardless of whether the victim is a democrat or republican, or Supreme Court justice, or not. Im going to propose an amendment to this kennedy amendment. I think this will encounter soledar position on this. If you want to go to page three of the amendment, follow along, its pretty simple. On page three, line 13, to insert after the word against any current or former Supreme Court justice, including that it preserves the rest what you have there. The strike on page four, paragraph five, in its entirety. I would offer that as an amendment in an effort to bring this to a bipartisan conclusion. It is pending the committee. Any comments or questions . Mister chairman, can i ask, go ahead senator. As a seconddegree amendment, you would strike the name of Clarence Thomas . And include every word of pages one through three of the amendment. Ive just inserted additional language to say that any current or former Supreme Court justice, so theres no other change. Will the chairman consider making those amendments separately, because the First Amendment you suggested, everyone to vote in favor of. The second amendment, striking the paragraph calling on the department of justice actually in force current ten existing federal law, i could not vote for. If you broke them up separately, id be happy to vote for the first. I have no objection to that. I think thats a reasonable request procedurally. Are there any other comments or questions . If, not then first, second, the first, Second Degree memo will be as follows. On page, very light 13, to insert after the word against, quote, any current or former Supreme Court justices, including the one to the rest of the amendment. Happy to yield. Didnt mention Justice Thomas by name . Your moment does completely. You are meant, did it take out the reference specifically to Justice Thomas. It includes Justice Thomas. That act answers i dont delete any words from your original amendment relating to Justice Thomas. It sounds like the First Amendment might be agreeable. Yes or no . Senator kennedy . All those in favor of the seconddegree amendment as describe to the committee, say i. I. Opposed, no. There, chairman, the ayes have it. So you admitted that the images agree to. The seconddegree amendment strikes on page four, all of section five. I know that is not what were going to get a bipartisan agreement on, so i suggest you high. [inaudible] dear god, yes. Mr. [inaudible] no by proxy. We know by proxy. So mr. Crews . Saw our mr. Kennedy . Mr. Blackburn . Sorry, no by proxy. Mr. The amendments is agreed to. Are there any further members to the kennedy amendment that is not on the amendment as amended . Without mr. Aye by proxy. Mr. Aye by proxy. Mr. Grassley. The mr. Corner. Mr. Ali. Mr. Booth. Mr. Hawley. Mr. Cotton. Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Blackburn. Durbin . 21 kennedy monmouth is agreed, two for their moments are coming before the committee. Similarly. I would like you to call up my amendment. A sigh of 23890. Purpose of this amendment is pretty simple. When a federal crime for confidential judicial work product. Through an unauthorized person. This is something that we could be punishable by a fine of up to 24,000 and ten years in prison. The aim is also last for the criminal forfeiture of all proceeds. From having engaged in this kind of criminal behavior. Its important that we take care of this, because if we saw what the leaked draft of the jobs opinion, but leaked draft opinion is hard for me to speak in the plural in this respect. Never in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States has occurred at least in this way. Prior to the dobbs case. Part of the dobbs case there is been a handful of circumstances in which rumors could of the court suggesting that a particular case was going to be decided this way or that the rumors as to the binary outcome of a case i like putting on red or black in the roulette wheel and there is a 50 shot of being right in most cases. In most cases you are looking more or less as a binary result. There is a number of combinations that support with a majority might look like, ultimate disposition by the court. Its really gonna come down to a form of reverse. What have been the dobbs case was so different and a complete offensive draft opinion of the court would like to the press. This did not occur in the abstract, its part of the whirlwind. Part of what hit them. Without them even knowing part of the whirlwind designed to threatened and intimidate and harass and discourage those who might have at the moment the inclination to support the alito draft. Unfortunately they were able to issue and ultimate disposition of the case but this part is clear. It was intended to. It was also intended to draw shame, ridiculous, corn and attention. Reasonably calculated to bring people to the homes of these justices. To try to bring further threats. Ultimately, these things are rife with opportunity. For potential violence. We cant accept the so at the time it happens, it was not that this was adequately taken into account by the law. Laws were broken in connection to this. Difficult to assess. Without knowing exactly who did it. I believe it still could have been reasonably ascertained, adequate investigation taking place there. And i still think the court is going to have to answer for that. But we need to make it clear on the books that this is a crime and we need to deter this kind of behavior from happening. Chairman, before we recognize senator blumenthal let me just comment on the amendment itself. I am sure that among senator lees Close Friends and colleagues, there is a sincere belief that whoever disposed this must have been some liberal who wanted to upset the dobbs decision. I can tell you in my corner of the political world the opposite was argued. It must have been a leader trying to solidify the position of the Court Justices who had committed the decision, and wanted to get it done as quickly as possible. I dont know who is right on that assertion. The right or the left. When investigation was ordered by the Supreme Courts chief justice, of the court itself to find the source of it, and hear anyone from the light weaponizing the department of justice, lets bring the man. Now we have a different point of view and i dont think it is consistent. Number, one relevant to the issue that is before us. This is about the code of ethics for the Supreme Court. Its not about the integrity of the court in its own dealings with any court. But, rather their reputation with the rest of the world including american voters. Senator blumenthal. Thanks, mister. Airman first, a question for senator lee. With the department of justice be responsible for enforcing this criminal code, and potentially or likely investigate the United States Supreme Court . The criminal code is itself in force in the United States federal criminal laws. Investigate this crime . It does not mean that in every instance outside Law Enforcement would be free to go in and raise the court. But, in circumstances where they believe they know who did not, or are concerned, as some really well, knows when you begin a criminal investigation you not always know who will. Get in, fact the likelihood is you dont know who did it. And where you do when you have a criminal defense on the box. What the chairman said a moment ago is this is not groundbreaking. This is not new. This is based on the closely may or something we have from an analogous parable version of the code in 18 usc section 98. Relates to the release of classified information. Slightly different classified information at the National Security secrets sort of writing. Let me just second what the chairman said. I think that first of all, the s amendment is notched remain. I was outraged by this leak because im sure senator lee was a former locker clerk on the United States Supreme Court and i respect the rules of confidentiality. Which apply. And both of us i think would question at least question the circumstances under which the department of justice wood began interrogating, literally interrogating, members of the United States Supreme Court. Which is what this amendment would almost certainly invite. Let me just say, generally, you know, i think both of, us senator lee, have tremendous respect for the nine states court. We have both been locked out a number of cases before the court. And frankly i think that what is happening in this debate is in fact further integrating and tracking with credibility and trust in the public in the state Supreme Court. Senator lee just referred to them, quoting justices on both sides of the aisle. But and quote. That is the way the public is seeing the United States Supreme Court. Just like any other political body. Politicians wearing robes, that ultimately is destructive to the court but the fact is the chief justice. Of the United States Supreme Court, if you just obey, and address this problem by coming forward with a code of ethics on behalf of the court, the failure to do so is in fact here today. Were not talking here about justices elements of the aisle are another appointees of republicans or democrats and both republican and democratic appointees are responsible for ethical preachers this bring us here today. I continue to urge chief justice of the United States to demonstrate to the leadership which will help save the court, and very significant democratic institutions. Senator, lee thank, you mister chairman. I appreciate senator blumenthal bringing in my motions. Look at this. Normally, when i make that reference what i am referring to is justices who have been appointed by present to both sides of the aisle and both parties and apparently from your quote im asked have washed that into one instance, that is a force of habit as a result of also i see that there that was a mistake by. Me thank you for pointing that out. Your suggestion house for your main decision relevant here. There was not a jermaine stated within the committee, certainly relevant to the topics that were talking about. On your separation of powers point theres a few spots there. First of all, you are correct in pointing out that you dont want outside Law Enforcement marching into the Supreme Court and investigating within the court itself. Nonetheless, everyone understood and the court undertook its own investigation, didnt go far enough and obtain information that are capable of identifying the person who undertook this activity. They wouldve further things brought to justice and allow the department of justice to take it from there. We are making a decision as to whether ultimately to pursue charges for a grand jury the concern that you raise this at the start he doesnt necessary and that wouldnt be helpful and i wouldnt be desirable, and that we dont need it. There is indeed significance for raising separation of powers here in light of a very significant separation of power concerns raised by the underlying legislation. We are coordinate bank branch of government relative to the Supreme Court. We have to try to very likely here. Lastly and do the Judicial Independence that has become the hallmark of our system. So, for that reason i dont so theyre finds. Tie the question is the adoption of the amendment. Mr. No by proxy. Now by proxy. Mr. Ono. Mr. Booker. Well know by proxy. Mr. Padilla. Now by proxy. Mr. Mr. Bradley. The amendment does not agree to, next on my list, senator hawley. Thank you mister chairman. , id like to call up l e w to nine. You know, ive welcomed the Ethics Reform. What ive notice is that this body has a habit of prescribing rules and standards for other people, and then not looking to its own problems, whether its obamacare, or additionally, Something Different for us. Or what its happening right now. For instance, in the last congress, one and Seven Members of the house senate, one and seven, thats a big number, violated current laws on the books that have failing to report their stock trades properly. 97 members of congress in the senate or their spouses are dependent. This is traded on companies that were directly affected by the committee. More than one in five of this executive branch currently holds stock in companies that they were supposed to be regulating, and there have been a series of reports in the press about the department, in particular, i think its two thirds or more, im going to look to make sure im getting the statistic, write a huge number of senior officials in the department of energy currently own stock in trade actively in stock on companies that d. O. E. Has direct oversight of. That includes the secretary of energy who were present at the congress under earth. She had no additional stop. It turns out she did have stop, she was trading that stock, and included companies the d. O. E. Has direct oversight of. Senator walsh mentioned earlier that americans are surprised that some of the ethics requirements that are or not and place in the Supreme Court. This is one where i talk to people at home about members of this body owning in trading and individual stock, or members of the executive branch owning and trading the stock in companies that theyre supposed to be overseeing. People are shocked its even legal. My proposals is simple one. Ever going to talk about reform, lets make sure were looking at ourselves as well. I am proposing here to amend this provision, this bill before us, to include a ban on Stock Ownership in trade for members of congress and Senior Executive Branch Officials. The bipartisan bill, that weve introduced, its a standalone bill. Its converted to an amendment. They would impose across the board Ethics Reform, and make this uniform. We would be addressing ethical lapses that are really impressing in our own body, and our own house, as well as the executive branch. I asked for thank you, senator hawley. This amendment seeks to represent members of congress, an executive branch from owning certain securities and investments while they serve in those positions. We should have a conversation around legislation to ensure members of congress of the executive Branch Officials arent engaged in insider trading. This is an important subject that canada should address. Will join in that debate. Unlike congress an executive branch, the Supreme Court does not bound by any ethical code of conduct. That is the purpose of this hearing and the pending legislation. Thats why were focusing on it today, turning our attention elsewhere as a distraction, therefore ill pose the amendment. Anyone else seek resignation . Now the clerk will call a role. [inaudible] no by proxy. No by proxy. Mr. [inaudible] charlotte no proxy. Meaux are [inaudible] charlotte know by proxy. Montlaurier [inaudible] mister chairman. Seeks recognition. Id like to be recorded as an eye on the vote, please. Senator klobuchar. I was not briefed on this so im going to vote no for now, a look at it later on. Thank you. I just have very big concerns about ethics in this place right now. [inaudible] the amendment does not agree to. The question before us is would you please designate which amendment i call it my amendment number c o 3207 a 13. Mister chair, any person can read and report on the opinion of the Supreme Court. Those opinions are published online within moments have been issued, the briefings and arguments are public as well. However, the Supreme Court also concurs special privileges on journalist, including special access to in the courtroom. Lets ask in the Court Building itself, access to the court after hours, and information not provided to the public. We are really concerned about transparency in our courts, islam the court also needs to know about the conflict of interest of those who have professional access at the court. Wed require that to be recognized by the Supreme Court as press, quarters of Media Outlets must mused to conditions. First, they must make publicly available to list of those funders, so we know what political causes are embedded in their own personnel within the Supreme Court itself. We must not disclose draft equipment or deliberation unless the Supreme Court authorized it. If youre going to help lead information that damages the court and the publics confidence in a legal system, you atlee should do so without special after hours access to the Court Building itself. I urge my colleagues to vote yes. Thank. You were trying to locate your amendment, i apologize. The number was co2 307 a 13, is that correct . Correct. Well im going to post this amendment, id like to explain why. This amendments focused on reporters that are simply doing their jobs instead of the court. Too often, we allow Supreme Courts to get away with misconduct that would not be allowed in any other part of our government. The Supreme Court justices play by their own set of rules, while the other branches of governments are bound by law. This amendment would continue that pattern, and reduce public disclosure. This amendment would not achieve the purpose of this, belmont unduly restrict freedom of the press. I urge my colleagues to oppose that. Anyone else seeking recognition . Mr. Putin . No by proxy. Mr. Xi [inaudible]. Mr. Booker . No by proxy. Mr. [inaudible] no by proxy. Mr. Ava. [inaudible]. Mr. Grant . E know by proxy. Mr. Bradley . Mr. [inaudible] . Mr. Lee . Mr. Crews . Mr. Hawley . The sister [inaudible] mr. Kennedy . Mr. [inaudible] mr. Blackburn . . E [inaudible] the amendment does not agree to. The next amendment is offer by senator cruz. Im going to exclude myself on the floor, and return senator whitehouse to turn the gavel over to him. Senator cruz, youre recognized. Thank you mister chairman. And id like to call my amendment, 23800. This amendment is very simple. It consists of the Supreme Court of the United States that will composed of nine justices. There has been considerable debates about the upwards of the party to pack the United States. For leftwing justices to the court to grow the number from 9 to 13 because democrats are unhappy with the decisions that are being issued by the Supreme Court. When fdr tried to pack the court, it was widely recognized to be a grotesque abuse of power undermining the rule of law that was true, then its true now. Some democrats in this body claim, at least when they return home and talk to their constituents, that they do not support packing the Supreme Court. This amendment is an opportunity to go on record and be clear whether or not to support packing the court. I would urge adoption of the amendment. More thank, you senator. And a constitution, it does not stipulate the Supreme Court justices. Thats a decision of congress. We have a long history of ordering the makeup of the court, the number of justices have changed six times before we landed on the number nine. In 1869. Theres only one living senator who is change the size of the Supreme Court. That is senator Mitch Mcconnell in kentucky, who shrunk the court to eight seats for nearly a year, and for purely political reasons, so he could refuse American Airlines by president obama. Republicans engaged in Court Packing plain and simple when they refused to consider then judge carlos some nation in 2016, and then hurried through justice barretts nomination in 2020. This is by republican colleagues who routinely tried to forget and nor this history. Republicans insistence that the Supreme Court must remaining nine seats, and their hysteria over democrats even discussing change does not square with that account that i gave you. Audibly, this amendment is unrelated to the bill before us, in the very real need to ensure the enforceable code of conduct. I will therefore oppose the amendment. Anyone else seek recognition . Mister chairman. Senator cruz. If i can respond briefly, it is true that congress had the authority to change the number of justices on the court. The last Time Congress exercise that authority was in 1869 after the civil war. It has been a long time that we have had nine justices. That is why when fdr tried to pack the court, even democrats said this was an abuse of power. Its an interesting commentary that the 1930s democrats and congress recognize that packing the court would do real damage to the rule of law, to the constitution. Today, democrats no longer believe that. The chairman tried to a gauged world play by saying that this is somehow packing the court. It is true that when president obama nominated merrick garland, the majority the Supreme Court made the decision not to come for. That is not packing this court, this is exercising the Constitutional Authority of the senate to advise. And that case, do allow the voters to make a decision. Justice cleopatra weigh in february after a president ial election here. The history had been true for over decades, when a vacancy occurred in a president ial election year, and the senate was on the opposing parties hands, the senate did not fill that vacancy. Rather, allow the voters to decide. Thats what the senate did. I understand Senate Democrats are unhappy about that. I also understand that some of wish Hillary Clinton had won instead of donald trump. Thats not, in fact, what happened. Packing the Supreme Court means one very specific thing. Adding additional seats to change the balance of power because you are unhappy about how the Supreme Courts ruling. It is directly interfering and the administration of justice, and it is profoundly dangerous. Ive gotta say, its going to be, sad its going to be revealing. The next time some democrat goes on the trail and says, no, were not going to pack the court, just remember what you are about to see, which is going to be arboretum across voting against the Supreme Court consisting of nine justices. Todays democrats, it is partisanship above all else, including the rule of law. This bill reflects that, and the willingness of democrats to try to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. The willingness to pack the court shows just how radicalized todays democrats have become. Chairman. I will recognize in just one second. The white house, perhaps the senator from texas recalls a meeting of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on oversight. Which you chaired. Would you accuse the Supreme Court of activism and called for the need to, quote, raining judicial tyranny. This is over the overfilled decision. After the high court handed down a decision that made Marriage Equality the length of the land, you voted a constitutional amendment with that as essentially up this constitution, and subject the justices to periodic reelections. The sacred number nine was not honor during the month of 2016 because it was last year of obamas presidency. Packing the court by senator mcconnell was the express purpose of a political result. I still oppose this amendment. Senator whitehouse. Thank you very much, mister chairman. Like so many of our republican friends, this is not related to the bill at hand. I would note that we are here discussing this because of the ethics mass that has [inaudible] [inaudible] we dont know yet what the whole story here is. We have a lot of investigative work to do to get to the bottom of it. We saw another important article come not just this morning about the nexus between leonard leo, and his front group. And his billionaires who fund him, and one of the justices on the Supreme Court. It just keeps getting worse. So i would urge a no vote on this amendment. I think we have a form vote. We will call the roll. [inaudible] the amendment does not agree to. If there are no more amendments, wed like to vote on final passage. Unfavourably reporting as this is the bill . Mister chairman. Senator whitehouse. I would like to make a few points that we wrap this up. The first is that i would react to the comments that the democrats want to pack the court. The court has already been passed. It has been packed as a result of a very long and expensive efforts run by a handful of secretive rightwing billionaires through a bunch of front groups. The tally of the cost of the operation has risen from the original 250 Million Dollar estimate of the washington post, and now 500 and 80 million spent on trying to make sure that those billionaire succeeded in what has been characterized as a long effort to make this a conservative court man. The question of whether or not it is appropriate for a Lower Court Judges to stand, in some degree, of judgment over the administrative question of whether there is compliance with rules is, actually, the current state of the judiciary. That is the way it works right now. Objecting to that is objecting to present reality. Let me start by pointing out that there are two sides to a judges job, one is a judicial side, adjudicate matters, the other is administrative. This includes the ethics part of and judges job. You have a clue which will the judges plane if theyre wearing a role. If theyre not, its very likely the administrative side of their work. And the administrative side of their work, where the ethics questions are handled, those determinations go to the judicial conference. Thats the same body i mentioned earlier that was established by congress, and that implements the Financial Disclosure law passed by conflict, passed by conflicts, and these laws passed by congress. It is made up almost entirely of Lower Court Judges. One justice, the chief justice and questions about Financial Disclosure of the justices are sent there now. We know that because we have seen it happen. And the first round of harlan crow to Clarence Thomas yacht and jet free travel disclosures back in 2011, that was sent to the judicial conference, and to its Financial Disclosure committee. Its Financial Disclosure committee is imposed entirely of Lower Court Judges. Circus chief judges, and district chief judges. That is who resolves the matter of that first round of guests from harlan cuero to Clarence Thomas. The second round, right now, that the judicial conference to the reviewing, was again sent to the Financial Disclosure committee. Again, made up entirely of Lower Court Judges. So the objection, and the Lower Court Judges would make a determination about whether justices have complying, for instance, with Financial Disclosure rules. Thats the president state. Thats the present state. The other question that went before recently, it was a question of Justice Scalia maneuver, want to call it that, of reading a personal limitation from a resort owner with, whom he had no personal relationship. This is a matter of personal hospitality. When that question went back for determination, it went back to the judicial conference. It was the judicial conference made up of Lower Court Judges that said, no, that doesnt fly. That is not legal. That is not what the personal hospitality will permit. Thank you for giving me a chance to make that record. I dont know if we have the i dont know if im holding up no, not yet, were still waiting for people to come back from the voting. You know, there are a lot of canard said are flying around and all of this. The cut are that Lower Court Judges cant make decisions about the administrative side, the ethics piece of Supreme Court justices behavior. This is blood by the fact that its happening exactly that way over and over again. Without objection. Without objection. When Justice Thomass first round of secrets yacht and jet gifts from harlan crow was referred to the Financial Disclosure committee. He did not say, wait a minute, you cant send back to that body. They are all Lower Court Judges. He went along with it. No Supreme Court justice has ever complained about Lower Court Judges through the judicial conference exercising their judgment about administrative, financial, an ethics matters. So that just means the argument that we are up against a attack on the independent judiciary, and this violates separation of powers, again, this is belied by the acts of the justices themselves. The judicial conference has existed for decades. The court knows it exists because the Supreme Court chief justice chairs it. They have never objected to that being an intrusion into separation of power, because it was established by congress. The Financial Disclosure rules that congress established, again, when the matter about the first round of harlan crow to Justice Thomas secret yacht and jet travel was sent to the judicial conference. Nobody said, you cant send it there because it violates separation of power. They didnt say you cant do it because this Lower Court Judges, and they didnt say you cant do it because its separation of power. That is because both of those arguments are completely false. There are ways to solve this problem that work squarely within the constitutional principle of separation of power. A principle that i revere. As one of my republican colleagues said today, there is also the question of checks and balances. Then we have to allow power to check power. Allowing congress the power to check abuses in the Judicial Branch is a long established and proven fact. That the Supreme Court has for decades gone along with without complaint. Even when, particularly when, it involves justices themselves. Indeed, after the judicial conference, no, you cannot fake personal hospitality if its a corporate venue. You cannot fake personal hospitality just because its a personal invitation. You cannot fake personal hospitality if there is not a real a longstanding personal relationship. When they said that, they were exercising power as given to them by congress. There was no objection to that from the Supreme Court. Indeed, thomas put out a rare statement saying that he would abide by that. He did not say that is unconstitutional, he did not say judges should not do that. He did not say there was a separation of power. He said, yeah. I will follow that new rule. Unfavourably reporting yes the Transparency Act, the court will call the rule. Hi. [inaudible] the bill will be favorably reported to the floor. We stand adjourned