Lectures about upholding our institutions and protecting democracy, but just as often, they find a way to undertake some new reckless attack against the courts and rule of law. Im proud of how our nations highest court has weathered these latest baseless attempts to attack its authority. I believe in the integrity and honesty of all nine justices all nine of them. They should pay the partisan grandstanding no mind at all. This meeting of the Senate Judiciary committee will come to order. Today, the Senate JudiciaryCommittee Considers the topic of Supreme CourtEthics Reform. Being a federal judge is a position of great honor and power, but above all, it is Public Service. We entrust judges with administering equal justice under the law. It is critical to our democracy that the American People have confidence that judges cannot be bought or influenced and that they are serving the public interest, not their own personal interests. Over the course of several decades, congress and the Judicial Branch created a system of ethics laws and standards for federal judges that lay out the clear rules of the road. These rules promote transparency and disclosure. They place guardrails on conflicts of interest, provide mechanisms for investigation and enforcement, and ensure accountability for misconduct. They strengthen faith in the fairness of the courts and the judges who serve on them. We are here today because the Supreme Court of the United States of america does not consider itself bound by these rules. I invited the chief justice to join this conversation. Last week he sent me a letter declining to testify to this hearing and he said, separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving the Judicial Independence. The reality is that sitting justices have testified at 92 congressional hearings since 1960. And i even offered to the chief justice the opportunity to designate someone else on the court to testify. But im more troubled by the suggestion that testifying to this committee would somehow infringe on the separation of powers or threaten Judicial Independence. In fact, answering legitimate questions from the peoples elected representatives is one of the checks and balances that help preserve the separation of powers. In his letter last week, the chief also sent what he called a statement of Ethical Principles and practices. It was a document attached to his letter. It is an extraordinary document, not in a good way. It makes clear that while the justices are fine with consulting with certain authorities on how to address ethical issues, they do not feel bound by those same authorities. Much of the document explains why justices think they should not be treated the same as other federal judges when it comes to ethics. And it stresses that recusal decisions are made by individual justices alone, with no review of their discretion. The chief justices letter and statement of principles are a defense of the status quo, but they are oblivious to the obvious. Last month we learned about a justice who for years has accepted lavish trips and realestate purchases worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from a billionaire with interests before the court. That justice failed to disclose these gifts, and has faced no apparent consequences under the courts ethics principles. That justice claims that lengthy cruises aboard a luxury yacht or personal hospitality and are exempt under current ethical standards from even being reported. The fact that a texas billionaire paid more than 100,000 for the justices mothers home seems to be an acceptable example because the justice says he lost money on the transaction. How low can the court go . One of our witnesses will say it is hallucinating misconduct. I think it is clear to most objective people that this is not the ordinary course of business, nor should it be a standard for those of us in Public Service. We wouldnt tolerate this from a city councilman for or an alderman. It falls short of ethical standards we expect of any Public Servant in america. And yet the Supreme Court wont even acknowledge it is a problem. The chief justices letter doesnt mention it. Meanwhile, the rest of the federal judiciary and the executive and legislative branches have codes of conduct designed to prevent even the appearance of fraud or corruption. The Supreme Court is an outlier on the basics. This is untenable. Ethics cannot simply be left to discretion of the nation highests court. The court should have a code of conduct with clear and enforceable rules, so both justices and the American People know what conduct crosses the line. The highest court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards. That reality is driving a crisis in Public Confidence in the Supreme Court. The status quo must change. For those who might suggest that my concern is driven by judicial activism against the current courts conservative philosophy, i and other members of this committee wrote the chief justice 11 years ago and urged the court to adopt a code of conduct. I can include a copy of that letter from february 2012 into the record. The Supreme Court should fix this themselves. For years theyve refused. Because the court will not act, congress must. Today we will hear from a panel of expert witnesses about the reforms that are needed, and lets be clear, congress not only has the authority to legislate in this area, but the responsibility. Taxpayers dollars pay for the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court. Congress passes many laws that shape the high court from the annual spending bills that pay the justices salaries to the federal statute that establishes the words the oath of office that the justices take. I appreciate the chief justice responding to my letters and questions from my democratic colleagues. But the answers we receive further highlight the need for meaningful Supreme CourtEthics Reform. We have the right and rationale to enact such reform, and that is what we will pursue. I want to say that this hearing is being held jointly with the full committee and the subcommittee on courts shared by sen. Whitehouse, joined with senator kennedy, i believe, in making opening stamens. At this time i turn it over to the Ranking Member senator graham. Sen. Graham thank you, mr. Chairman. I, too, expressed a desire for the court to be more transparent and have rules that the public can relate to. We have been talking about that for quite a while. Ive never suggested that the congress should take over the courts ability to regulate itself. I do not believe that is wise. And the letter that was received by the committee was not just signed by Justice Roberts, it was signed by all of the judges. All of them have the same concern, not just one. So where do we go and what are we trying to do . I think he was what you are trying to do that here is what you are trying to do the democratic forum. Remember when senator schumer went to the court and started yelling at everybody in the court not everybody, just pretty much our folks i want to tell you, gorsuch, i want to tell you, kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You wont know what will hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. Awful decisions we all have been in the boat of getting an outcome from the Supreme Court we wouldnt like. But the majority leader of the United States senate went in front of the court, literally out in front of it, and threatened two judges. And Maxine Waters says you aint seen nothing yet. We can talk about ethics, and thats great, but we are also going to talk about the concentrated effort by the left to delegitimize this court and to cherry pick examples to make a point. The New York Times wrote an article a couple of days ago suggesting that George Mason Law School was up to an effort to take over the court by lavishing them with trips and influencing their decisionmaking process, by sponsoring trips overseas while they were on break. The New York Times did not tell us about Justice Sotomayors travels to florence, italy. They did not tell us about efforts Justice Kennedy took a threeweek multi trip to salzburg, austria, aspen, colorado, paid for by the university of the pacific. Justice sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg traveled on the dime of new york university. Justice jackson was reimbursed by the university of californiaberkeley in 2016 and 2014 for traveling to the aspen institute. Chief Justice Roberts was reimbursed for travel to london to teach a class on the history of the Supreme Court to students of the new England School of law. So universities throughout this country have been paying for trips of judges. But if you read the New York Times, you wouldnt know that, would you . I cant say i read the new republic, but this is a headline. The democrats needed to destroy Clarence Thomass reputation. That is sort of what we are here about. Well, it is not going to work. This assault on Justice Thomas is well beyond ethics. It is about trying to delegitimize a conservative court that was appointed through the traditional process. Your response has been to pack the court. Virtually every member of the democratic caucus, except maybe one or two, are expanding the number of judges to dilute the conservative majority that exists today. Mr. Chairman, from our point of view, this is not going to work. You can write all the articles you want to write and take all the shots at the conservative justices you want to take. You can picket before their houses. Its not going to stop people from doing their job. This is an unseemly effort by the Democratic Left to destroy the legitimacy of the roberts court. Its put people at risk, its put their personal safety at risk. If you want to talk about making the court a better institution, ill be glad to work with you in that regard. If you want to talk about destroying the court, count me out. And about conflict of interests, Justice Kagan, who is a fine person, was the dean of harvard law school. She has raised half 1 billion for the law school. When she was dean, that was sort of her job. After she left, she has been trying to raise money for harvard law school. There is a case involving harvard before the court, shes not going to recuse herself. Im not saying she should. Im just saying there is a very selective outrage here. And from our point of view on this side of the aisle, we are going to push back as hard as we can and tell the American People the truth about what is going on here. This is not about making the court better. This is about destroying a conservative court. It will not work. Sen. Durbin thank you, senator graham. I might note that the letter i sent 11 years ago to the court was not any indication of hurt feelings about court opinions. Another person on this subject for many years is the chairman of the court subcommittee, Sheldon Whitehouse of rhode island. I recognize him now. Sen. Whitehouse thank you, chairman. We are here because the Supreme Court is playing out of bounds of the ethics rules for federal judges. Justices read the ethics rules in unique and eccentric ways, and when they are cut out of bounds, they refused to allow any investigation of the facts. The personal hospitality problems ive been pursuing began with Justice Scalia, who took more than seven dozen undisclosed hunting vacations. Most people know of two, one where he was with dick cheney, and the one where he died. There were 70plus more. It was systematized. An intermediary with the owner of a resort extending to scalia a personal invitation to the resort. Even when the owner was someone he had never met, scalia treated as personal hospitality because of the personal invitation, and failed to disclose the vacations. Gun industry advocates and republican political figures often tagged along. No reading of personal hospitality would cover this, but at the Supreme Court it went on for years. When i challenged the court about this practice, exhibit 1, i got a blowoff letter, exhibit 2. Basically, nothing to see here. So then i asked of the Circuit Courts what they thought about this conduct. I went 013 on answers. Exhibit 3. So i sent another letter saying i hope it didnt indicate obstruction. Exhibit 4. I was told the Financial Disclosure committee would examine how the exemption was interpreted. That is exhibit 5. Almost a year later, two weeks before the recent news about Justice Thomas broke, the judicial conference updated its guidance to clarify that this sort of nondisclosure violates the law, exhibit 6. I have no evidence that any federal judge outside the Supreme Court ever used a personal invitation trip. The judicial conference made up of other judges firmly shut it down. Regular judges would be loath to use that trip because the complaint about it would go through the proper process, it would be investigated and measured against the law and the ethics code, and a conclusion would be reached, and that conclusion could be embarrassing. Only Supreme Court justices refused to allow their conduct to be investigated or reviewed. My bill would fix that. Here is an example of the noinvestigations problem the key factor to determine whether Justice Thomas was bound by law to recuse himself from the first january 6 Committee Case was what he knew about his wifes insurrection activities and when he knew it. On that fact, the lawfulness of his initial recusal position turns. Yet thomas has never been officially asked that question. Its a coverup in plain view. The Supreme Court alone among federal courts is ok with that. My bill would fix that. Which brings us to Justice Thomass recent nondisclosure of supposed personal hospitality from a rightwing billionaire and its problems. First problem, private jet travel is not in the personal hospitality exemption, which is limited to food, lodging, and entertainment. Exhibit 7. Some textualist, by the way. Second problem, thomas said it was ok because he asked colleagues. But that Financial Disclosure committee is there to ask about Financial Disclosure. Setting aside that its name should give a clue, thomas knew the committee existed because concerns about his yacht and jet travel gifts from this billionaire were referred there in 2011 after some of these gifts were first revealed in this New York Times story, exhibit 9. Third problem, there is no legal way not to disclose the acquisition in georgia. Fourth problem, some of this personal hospitality involved people dedicated to turning the court into a tool for rightwing billionaires, namely leonard leo. This guy doesnt have business before the court, his business is the court. This disclosure mess has again been referred to the Financial Disclosure committee, which raises the question of the previous referral to the same committee of the same billionaires gifts to thomas of yacht and jet travel. The rules require the committee to report its findings to the judicial conference. The records of the judicial conference are public. And the records of the judicial conference contained no mention of any such report. So what became of the 2011 referral . Did anyone intervene . Is the Committee Still considering the 2011 referral more than a decade later . There is much yet to learn, which is why last week i sent a letter to the courts asking for further answers, exhibit 10. Three things i needed to fix all this better enforcement, better recusal rules, and better disclosures. My bill would do all three. I thank you chairman durbin for this joint hearing and i look forward to getting to the bottom of this mess. Until there is an honest ethics process at the Supreme Court, these messes will continue. The court has conclusively proven it cannot police itself. I asked for unanimous consent that my exhibits be made part of the record. Sen. Durbin without objection. We will hear from Ranking Member of the subcommittee, senator kennedy of louisiana. Sen. Kennedy thank you, mr. Chairman. Americans may be poorer under the biden administration, but they are not stupid. They know what is going on here. I remember the Democratic Leaders words of march 4, 2020, on the steps of the United State