Healthy democracy doesnt just look like this. It looks like this where americans see democracy work and truly informed, public graphs, get informed straight from the source, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the Nations Capital to whatever you are its the opinion that matters the most, this is what democracy looks like. Hes been powered by cable. The Senate Judiciary committee voted to advance a bill to establish Supreme Court justice in recent disclosure about personal conduct outside of their official duties. The pass along party lines with only one amendment that condemns racist comments for justices receiving bipartisan support. The committee debated the bill during three hour session on capitol hill. Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order, welcome, everyone. We have a conflict with the Senate Appropriations committee in bothh committees and we will start the meeting sometime this morning and who may be called to attend. We will work to accommodate keep things moving forward. U. S. District judge for the district of pennsylvania. We will vote on 359 Supreme Court ethics Transparency Act of 2023. Hi , google, 11 years ago a different Supreme Court in the first call on chief Justice Roberts to adopt a code of conduct Supreme Court justice. In virtually every other Public Servant in the federal government. I want to commend senator for his performance, hes worked on this for a long time and respect the good work hes put in. This is a crucial first step restoring confidence in the court after a steady stream of records of ethical failures released to the public. Public support for the supremeu court is at an alltime low. Members withhold comments after we consider the nominee. I will respond in a minute but we had concerns about political donations but we have looked and everything is okay and ready to move forward. Is there anyone would like to speak on this nomination . U. S. District judge of pennsylvania, the purple color will. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] nomination will be reported. Thank you for consideration 359. The Supreme Court ethics refusal Transparency Act circuit. The past several months steady streams of news reports highlighting ethical failures of the highest court in the land, Supreme Court justices appointed by republican and democratic president s. He even paid for the education of a relative of Justice Thomas. None of this was included in his Financial Disclosures. Justice samuel alito to the fishing trip to alaska and traveled on a private jet and conservative donor like Justice ThomasJustice Alito did not trust any of this and he did not believe it washe required to disclose private jet travel sitting in what was otherwise empty tax from the court stuff to promote additional sales in conjunction with this and failed to recuse herself involving her book publisher. The Staff Members in this room today were involved in would be in violation of the rules that governrn congress because all of us are subject codes of conduct that prohibit for personal gain. If we fail to meet these standards. The same is not true for the justices across the street. Unlike every official, Supreme Court justices are c not found y code of ethical conduct. They are the most powerful in america and get does not require the most basic standards. But we are considering will change that and will cause the Supreme Court to adopt enforceable code of conduct and add refusal transparency requirements and would bring all justices of the Supreme Court in line with every other federal judge in america. Historians and you will scholars from across the spectrum agree legislation imposing code of conduct on the Supreme Court necessary and well within the congressional authority. Members of the committee on both sides of the aisle have long lead efforts on the Supreme Court accountable and transparent. In 2021 in this transparency that required all officers including Supreme Court justices to file disclosures of securities transactions just congress. Rs of the bill passed the congress unanimously, both parties and signed into law in the Supreme Court is abiding by this. In a bipartisan bill i introduced in the Supreme Court to bring all sessions. Someone suggested they are pursuing and target the majority. The reforms proposed in equal force to all justices and more than 11 years ago in a Different Court urging the chief justice court, did not accept my suggestion. More stories emerged on the ethical American People confidence in the Supreme Court dropped to an alltime low. My colleagues, the Supreme Court term begins with the announcement by the marshal of the United StatesSupreme Court and strikes the gavel when he says the honorable, chief justice and associate justice Supreme Court of the United States is oh yeah, oh yeah, zero yea. Businesses you for this are admonished to draw here and give attention and save the United States in this honorable court. Three times commercial declares Supreme Court with the enactment of this legislation highest court in the land will make that claim. This will. Be a spirited debate. I hope you know where to go today because we have a lot before the consideration. What youre trying to do is trying to destroy it and its a long ongoing effort here. You have to look at this in terms of what isof going on fora couple of years. In senator schumer, and yuko forward with this awful decision, this is the majority leader. Supreme Court Justice knows the highprofile decision, the security was the explanation by a represented from New Hampshire when conservative judges had their houses surrounded. Maxine waters who have known for a long time since you aint seen nothingi yet. Democrats look at packing the Supreme Court. The reason you want to pack it because you like the makeup of the court. Youve done just about everything there is to do to delegitimize this court. Members of the democraticip leadership went to the steps of the Supreme Court and threaten people. When it comes to Clarence Thomas, i dont get it but apparently some of you do, democrats need to look at his reputation. Youre going hard and he will fail miserably. This going nowhere. All of us will vote no and i hope you bring it to the floor. A spirited debate about what the bill would do to the court this is not what they would do, its legislation that will change. The Supreme Court was created by the constitution and that branch of the government. Our Founding Fathers decided to create three branches of government in the constitution. The bill you have before us would erode the power of the Supreme Court overtime. It would allow more Court Justices to have complaints against the court. Members of the Supreme Court, it would create a body for anybody to file complaint against the court in the complaint would be adjudicated by lower Court Justices which strikes at the heart of the Supreme Court. The recusal mechanism you cant expand the court, something very mark as he always does, this bill would shrink the court. Disqualified conservatives and every major case and the way you handle recusal is micromanage how the Court Must Decide when to recuse. The individual justice would no longer have that power, youd give it to other justices. That is it constitutional call on the power of the court to do business. None of us have illusions about what is going on here. This will beul the 2024 ballot,i hope. The ever to make the Supreme Court is unlimited. What people on the other side willll do in the name of having people on the court they agree with is almost unlimited. When justice were surrounded in the home, attorney general didnt do anything about it so i tried to work with you when i can. It took 50 years to get it conservativeco court. We did it the oldfashioned way we nominated people and that the boat and worked hard. Not all of these accusations, is nothing outside the norm of the senate when he came to finding people to vote on the court. The bottom line, this is ago designed to make the court stronger or ethical, a bill to destroy it conservative court. The goal to create a situation where judges can be disqualified by statute, rearrange the makeup of how the government is. You complain what is going on and i hope they can find a way deal with the problems but to be lectured by the Democrat Party is a bit rich. Everyone of you openly suggested we should change the number of the Supreme Court and this is your chance to say no, i dont want to expand the court. Pa the position of the Democratic Party expand justices from nine to probably 13 to dilute the power of a conservative court. Think how that plays out over time. Every time there is a change of power in the branch of congress, change the number tong get outcomes we like, that is what you are willing toto do, the mot extreme solution to a problem i can think of. Packing the court destroys the court. Micromanage how the court operates destroys the court. A completer process in the name of ethics designed to disqualify people, it destroys the court. I dont know what the vote will cann the committee but i assure this effort and the court will go nowhere in the u. S. Senate. Thank you, senator graham. Lets be clear, there is only one living senator changed the size of the Supreme Court. The republican leader that shrink the court eight seats nearly a year refusing to consider Merrick Garland nomination. If i may, the position of the minority you do not want to expand the court, is that the position of the Senate Majority . I only speak for myself. Okay, thats one. It is clear there is an effort by the left to expand the court and what senator did is consistent to whats happened. Let me start in this recusal and Transparency Act to the rest of my colleagues for cosponsoring. This would address already sodisclosed misconduct weve sen at the Supreme Court recently. Comprehensive judicial decision is overview but worth remembering to how we got to this markup let me be candid about my belief the Supreme Court has been captured by special interest much like the commission in the 1890s captured by real quote to decide things their way. I knew ethics for a wire when i do start determined justice leah had taken many unreported vacations often with political companions. The theory is a personal institution from a resort owner hes never met, a free vacation hospitality did not reported under federal law. And they shot it down. The verdict of their fellow judge. Other justices had witnessed behavior over decades but did nothingg about it other than soe cases to copy it. Then the coordinated front group showed up at the court and some have been paid by parties and others massed interest in the law. There is a disclosuree rule enforcement is a failure. Showing who is behind these cases. The biggest at no surprised, appeared in this case with the coke brothers main battleship americans for prosperity. I counted 55 and these groups record of justices link their way. Justice thomas and the case, the lawfulness or unlawfulness and failure to recuse depends on simple facts of what he knew about construction activities when he knew it. To this day the court engaged in zero effort to make that determination. It has no. The only court in the country and perhaps the only court in theap world with no ethics procs at all. Then came the news six politically active rightwing billionaires providing massive hospitality for at least two justices. Not one person on this committee could or would except the bonanza had a long secret northwood executive branch nor any other federal judge and that is before you throw in the repeated communion should of justices on the troubles with operatives at the heart of the scheme Supreme Court remains idle. Last two points usually result unique be read as to how it asking about Financial Disclosure obligations Disclosure Committee judicial that purpose. Have beene laughable. They dont disclose these because a private jet airplane is a facility. And 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 cant make amendments to Laws Congress has passed or oversee Agencies Congress has created. For decades, the justices themselves have never objected to and eventually repeatedly and without complaint complied with this structure. So even the court has demonstrated it does not believe that canard. We are here because the highest court in the land has the lowest standard of ethics anywhere in the federal government. And justices have exhibited much improper behavior. Not least in hapless efforts to excuse the misdeeds. This cannot go on here defending this behavior defends the indefensible. Thank you, chairman krishnamoorthi senator grassley. I will be voting against this very partisan Supreme Court ethics recusal and Transparency Act. This bill is not about oversight or accountability. Its about harassing and intimidating the Supreme Court. Over the past several years the far left has mounted an unprecedented assault against the Supreme Court. The far left is unhappy with the courts conservative majority, and detests a handful of its decisions. So the far left has resorted to bullying tactics considering that only 9 of the course decisions last year were on a 63 division. The far left playbook is to attack the court, passed out on the legitimacy of the institution, impugn the reputation of the justices and attempt to dictate the rules and practices of a separate branch of government. Since 2020 we seen proposals to resurrect the failed misguided idea of Court Packing. This is a notion overwhelmingly rejected by the American People when it wasca last proposed durg the new era of the 1930s. Nevertheless, some on the left are actively pushing bills tols pack the court anyway. Fdr could not do it here how do they think they can do it today . In 2022, we saw the extraordinary and unethical leak of the draft dobbs decision. This was an over attempt to ramp up public pressure against the courtt to sway justices before the final decision was issued. Thankfully, these attempts failed. But the far left continues to decoy extreme tactics display the corporate conservative justices homes addresses were publicly posted and shared. Protesters hold weekly demonstrations outside the private homes of justices in violation of federal statute. Justices and their families have been confronted in public, even at restaurants and sometimes on vacation. This has resulted in a real physical security concern, and at least one assassination attempt. Somebodys justices have Young Children who witness these shocking acts of intimidation. Over the past few months the latest efforts are to manufacture claims of conflict of interest. At first there were attacks against the spouses of justices, who also happen to work in the vast legal field. Wereer, no such claims lodged against Justice Oconnor or Justice Ginsburg whose husbands were lawyers, while these justices served on the bench. Nowth there is a drip, drip of stories attacking the travel of conservative justices. These stories conflate trip some years ago, some decades ago, with newly updated disclosure guidelines announced in march of this year. The rule change from the judicial conference is related to personal hospitality exceptions to the disclosure. The justice, the judiciary took action on its own to bring clarity to what was once overly broad and poorly defined. These stories cherry picked, traveled by travel by certain justices. They go on to raise conjecture and misrepresent the facts and failed to explain the rules thaf were then in place prior to these march 7th changes