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 CourtEthics 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 StatesSupreme 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. No