Concerns about SCOTUS ethics rules should be directed towards left-leaning justices first, according to Democrats.

Senate​ Judiciary ⁢Committee Democrats to‍ Consider‌ “Ethics” ​Bill

Senate‍ Judiciary ⁣Committee‍ Democrats will⁢ convene a business⁢ meeting Thursday to consider their Supreme ‌Court‍ “ethics” bill. ‌But there is no​ “ethics‍ problem” with ⁣the ⁤Supreme⁣ Court, ​and⁤ certainly⁣ not with Justices Thomas and Alito, who⁣ have ⁤been ⁣falsely⁣ smeared even ⁢though​ they complied‍ with the relevant ⁣disclosure‌ provisions in ​place at ⁣the time.

But it’s worth‍ reviewing‍ the ‍Democrats’ ‌reactions to Democrat-appointed⁢ justices’⁢ conduct to show ⁤why Democrats​ don’t care⁤ about⁣ ethics ⁣and ‌are using made-up “ethics” ‌smears ⁤to undermine the⁢ court ‌because ⁣the‍ left ​doesn’t‍ like‌ the court’s popular recent rulings, like ‍affirmative ⁤action, ⁤the protection of a‍ Christian website designer’s ⁤First ⁤Amendment ⁣speech ​rights,​ and ⁣the striking ​down of President Biden’s wildly ​unconstitutional student loan ⁤forgiveness⁣ giveaway. ⁢Recall that⁤ ProPublica,‌ the left-wing outfit ⁢funded by ⁢left-wing‍ billionaires,‌ did not⁣ start looking into the court’s “ethics”‌ until after the Dobbs ⁢decision​ overturning ‌Roe ⁣v.​ Wade.

Ethics ​Probes⁣ for Conservatives ‍Only

The Democrats claim they ‌need‌ to strengthen the recusal ​provisions ‍for justices, but they never had any⁤ problem⁣ with Justice ‌Ginsburg’s⁣ husband’s ⁣firm appearing‍ repeatedly before ⁤the Supreme Court. ⁤Justice Ginsburg ​never recused,⁢ and in fact, ‌she⁣ voted in favor of ​her husband’s firm’s ‍client​ in⁤ the ​2007 KSR ‌International case.⁣ Nor did‌ she ​recuse when Marty Ginsburg’s ⁢former ‍client, Ross Perot, who had‍ gifted him an⁣ endowed chair at Georgetown ⁢Law‍ Center,⁣ appeared ⁣before‌ the court⁤ in⁤ 1997. ​No Democrat or the⁢ media ever‌ raised concerns ⁢about this.

The Democrats and​ media ​have claimed the​ court ⁢has become too partisan,‌ with no ⁤basis‍ for this​ claim. But Democrats⁣ had⁢ no ‌problem when Justice⁤ Ginsburg⁢ accepted ⁣the Eleanor⁣ Roosevelt ​Award‍ (and statue)​ from the​ National⁣ Women’s Democrat Club,​ a‌ partisan‍ organization dedicated to ‍electing Democrats.‌ NPR Supreme ⁢Court reporter Nina Totenberg⁤ even emceed this⁣ partisan​ event!

Imagine if‌ Justice ⁤Thomas ⁣or Alito⁤ had ​accepted an ‌award​ from the Republican National​ Committee. Heads‌ would have ​exploded. ⁤Totenberg would have⁣ been ⁢first ‍out of⁣ the gate condemning⁣ this brazenly unethical act. But ⁤no ⁤Democrat or reporter⁣ ever expressed ⁢concerns about ⁢Ginsburg’s‍ openly ⁢political act or whether this ⁤would​ have ⁢any⁢ adverse⁤ effects on the court’s integrity.

Or consider ⁤that Ginsburg autographed ⁤her⁤ Virginia​ Military‌ Institute⁣ opinion⁤ to ‍be used in an‌ auction ​in 1998 to raise ⁤funds⁤ for​ the ‍pro-abortion group National Organization for‍ Women (NOW) PAC. No Democrat‍ has ever expressed⁣ concerns⁣ about Ginsburg using her ‌position to​ explicitly⁢ help​ a pro-abortion‌ group raise‍ money. ⁢But imagine if Alito signed a copy of his ‌epic Dobbs ⁣opinion⁢ and gave it to‍ the‌ pro-life Susan B. ⁣Anthony group ⁤to ‍raise funds.

In‍ January 2004,‌ Ginsburg‍ gave opening ​remarks at a‌ lecture series, titled⁢ the ⁤”Justice‍ Ruth Bader ⁣Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series on ⁣Women ​and the ‍Law,”​ co-sponsored by ⁢the ‍NOW Legal Defense and⁣ Education ‍Fund.​ She gave these remarks ⁤two ‍weeks after ⁢she had‍ ruled ‍in a‍ case in‍ the​ same manner a NOW ⁤Legal Defense ⁣Fund brief had urged.‍ No​ Democrat ever expressed⁣ any concern that she‍ spoke ⁢at this left-wing pro-abortion organization’s ⁢lecture⁤ series (which ⁤Ginsburg ​allowed to ⁢use​ her name)⁣ that ⁢regularly files briefs at⁤ the court,‌ and ⁤Ginsburg never⁣ recused ​from ⁢cases involving⁢ NOW LDF.

Refusing ​to⁣ Recuse

In the⁤ most ⁤unethical act by any justice in modern history, Ginsburg ‌publicly⁢ attacked candidate Donald Trump in​ the⁤ 2016 presidential ‌race to⁢ stop ⁤him ⁣from being elected. ⁢She​ called⁢ him⁤ a​ “faker” ⁤and criticized​ him ⁤for not ‍releasing​ his⁢ taxes.

But‌ when she ‌made some⁤ of these ‌unethical remarks to The New⁢ York ⁤Times Supreme Court reporter​ Adam Liptak,‌ he⁢ mentioned ‍nothing⁤ about how​ unethical ‌her⁣ comments were. The⁣ headline was “Ruth Bader ⁣Ginsburg,⁣ No Fan ‍of Donald ‍Trump,‌ Critiques​ Latest ‌Term.” Other journalists like ⁣Linda Hirshman in ‍Politico​ celebrated Ginsburg engaging in⁤ this‍ completely unethical‍ attack.

Slate’s⁤ Mark Joseph Stern ​admitted Ginsburg’s conduct was “not⁤ just unethical, ​it’s ⁣dangerous,” but ⁢not ​surprisingly he ⁤later in ⁣the‌ same ​article excused Ginsburg’s conduct‌ as ‍some sort‍ of noble effort to​ stop Trump. I’m‍ not aware of any Democrat members⁤ of Congress criticizing ​her for this⁤ outrageously ⁢unethical conduct.

To‍ add ‍insult to‌ injury, ⁤when ⁢a case​ (Trump⁢ v. Mazars) came before ​the Supreme ⁢Court regarding⁢ whether Trump ⁢was⁤ required to⁢ release ‍his ​taxes ⁣in response to⁣ a congressional ⁣subpoena, Ginsburg did‍ not ⁣recuse​ and voted against Trump. ⁢No Democrat or anyone in the media‍ seemed bothered by this,⁢ despite her⁣ having​ previously proclaimed ​her partisan⁤ and predetermined‍ position on⁢ the⁢ matter.

A⁣ Newly Discovered‍ Missing⁣ $1 ​Million

In ‍a new report this week, it was revealed ​that ‍Ginsburg directed ‍the $1⁤ million prize ​she received ‌in 2019 ⁢from the Berggruen Institute to ​be distributed to‌ more‍ than‍ 60⁣ groups, ​but she required ⁢that ‌the recipients not ⁢be ‍disclosed. ​Thus, there is no way to tell whether she should have recused​ from one of⁤ these groups appearing before ⁢the⁤ court. But⁢ when​ she announced she was‌ distributing ​these ‌funds, I ⁣am⁣ not⁤ aware​ of‌ any Democrat being​ curious as to⁢ who‌ would​ be getting‌ this funding and ⁢whether ​they would⁤ appear before the court. ⁢Again, just⁣ switch the names from Ginsburg to Thomas and ​you know⁣ what‌ would have ‍followed.

Democrats ‌claim this⁢ so-called “ethics bill”⁤ is needed ⁤because‌ some⁢ justices are traveling ‍on private ​jets ⁤and ‌vacationing ​with ‌wealthy friends, regardless ‍of‍ whether these trips⁤ have been disclosed. Many stories⁢ criticized⁣ Thomas for having friendships with ​wealthy ⁣individuals,⁤ which brings Thomas in “proximity to ‍a lifestyle of unimaginable ⁣material privilege.”

But neither‌ Democrats nor the⁣ media‍ had⁤ any criticism⁢ when Ginsburg ⁢traveled ​with‌ billionaire ​Morris‍ Kahn and toured three countries⁢ in the​ Middle East in 2018 right after ⁢the court ruled​ in​ his‍ company’s​ favor. Kahn ⁢paid for ⁤transportation, food,​ and⁣ lodging. No ​Democrat or reporter criticized⁣ this.

In‌ fact, while⁢ Kahn’s ⁢company’s⁢ case was ⁤still​ pending before ‌the ‍court in 2017, ⁢the Genesis Prize Foundation, a group to which ​Kahn⁤ was involved​ and provided significant financial ‌support at the time, ‌announced it‌ was ⁢awarding ‍Ginsburg a ⁣lifetime achievement award. (And ‌the foundation ⁣appears initially to have ⁣wanted⁣ to award ⁣her its ⁣$1 ‍million ⁢dollar ​Genesis⁣ Prize). Less ⁤than two⁤ weeks later, ‍the⁣ Supreme Court⁣ ruled in ⁢Kahn’s favor.

Nor did‌ any‍ Democrat criticize Justice Breyer‍ for being flown ⁢around the‍ world​ by the famously Democrat Pritzker family,⁢ through its ⁤various foundations, one of ⁢them‌ regarding an architecture prize.⁢ In addition ⁤to many domestic ‌flights funded‍ by⁣ the Pritzker organizations, Breyer was ‍flown to many ⁤international⁣ locations, such as⁢ Vancouver in 2019, Paris in‍ 2019, Toronto ⁣in ⁣2018, Ireland and ⁤Spain in 2018, Spain and​ France in ⁢2016, Beijing ⁢in ⁤2012, ‍London in 2012,⁢ and ​Norway,⁢ Sweden,⁤ and ‍Copenhagen​ in 2013.

Nor ‍did any Democrat raise concerns ⁢when Breyer ⁣flew on ‌billionaire David ⁤Rubenstein’s ⁣private jet to Nantucket to attend ​a wedding.

These smears by Democrats ​have nothing to do ‌with⁣ ethics.​ As ⁢demonstrated,⁢ Democrats are ‌hypocrites who don’t care ‌about ‍ethics ‍on ⁤the Supreme Court⁤ and‌ are using‍ these⁤ bogus smears‍ to undermine⁢ the ⁣court’s legitimacy because they don’t ‌like its rulings.⁤ Republicans should oppose this‌ bill, ‍not only ⁢because ‍it is clearly an unconstitutional assault ⁢on ⁤a ⁤separate branch ⁢of government, but because ‌the​ Democrats are acting in​ bad⁢ faith. To be ‌in favor⁤ of​ it would‌ be to give ⁢legitimacy ⁢to ‍this dangerous ⁤attack on ⁣the court’s ‍integrity and​ independence.