Dems Want to Impose “Code of Conduct” on SCOTUS

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. Congressional Democrats are unhappy with the way some things have been going at the Supreme Court lately, so they’ve decided to draft a bill telling the justices how they should conduct their affairs. Citing “unprecedented” Behavior from some of the justices, or the conservative ones, the bill would You can force the court To enact a “code of conduct” Similar to the ones used by lower courts. This is not only a partisan shot across to the bow based solely on the specious grounds being offered, but Congress’s inability to blatantly get involved with the operation and administration of the court’s operations is at best constitutionally dubious. (Yahoo News)

This week, both the Senate and House Democrats introduced a bill to force the enactment of the ACA. Supreme Court To adopt a code to conduct justices. This is a step they believe is necessary to restore trust in conservative majority court, which has been damaged by Republican actions.

“The word unprecedented is starting to lose its meaning as we see more and more questionable behavior from justices,” Rep. Hank Johnson D-Ga. “And public trust and confidence in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low.”

Rep. David Cicilline, Rhode Island’s Democratic sponsor, blamed the eroding trust for a series Republican decisions and actions over the past few years. Some of these helped the GOP secure a favorable vote. 6-3 Conservative majority The court.

Democrats whine about all manner of things, but none of them stand up to scrutiny. They’re saying that the court’s conduct has “eroded public trust” The institution. While it’s true that trust in government across the board has been sagging significantly in recent years (and for good reason), public approval of SCOTUS and the judicial branch was still Last year, 47%. Yes, that’s lower than usual, but have you seen the approval rating of the Congress that is calling them out? (Spoiler alert: It’s 22%.)

What about that? “questionable behavior” that’s being mentioned? Some of the bill’s sponsors cited Mitch McConnell refusing to give Merrick Garland a vote, Ginni Thomas’ text messages, and the leak of the Roe Last year, he was the judge. In case the Democrats haven’t noticed, neither Mitch McConnel nor Ginni Thomas is on the Supreme Court. Even though the leak was quite unusual and potentially problematic, we still have not heard who leaked it. (Personallly, I am still convinced that it was a clerk, not one of their justices.

The bill would also create rules that determine when a justice should withdraw from a case. That’s certainly a valid concern for any court, but it’s a decision that has traditionally been left up to the individual justices. Recusal could be used to establish a “clear duty for the judge/justice to know when they or their family stands to gain financially from a case that’s before them.”

I’m sorry, but are you freaking kidding me? (Not really sorry.) You mean to tell us that Congress’s army is going on a lecture tour about the Supremes profiting from their work? Excuse me, but Nancy and Paul Pelosi would like a word…

We now have to ask whether Congress has the power. Along with Congress and President, the Supreme Court is one of three branches co-equal to the federal government. There are some sections. The Exceptions Clause that provide a way for Congress to determine jurisdiction in some types of cases that can impact which cases the Supreme Court can hear, but that’s about it. The law could be immediately challenged if they tried to create a code that the Supreme Court would have to follow. Who would have the last word in this challenge? The Supreme Court of course. You have my best wishes. Let us know how it goes for you.

What this boils down to is a group of Democrats who are angry about the abortion decision, gun control, and other cases where the court’s conservative majority has prevailed. You know, back when the liberal justices still held the majority on the court, they didn’t have a code of conduct then, either. But I don’t recall hearing any Democrats raising a stink about it. It’s funny how it works, eh!

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases