On Thursday, Senate Democrats led by conspiracy enthusiast Sheldon Whitehouse and Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin will take the next step in its quest to reshape the judiciary by holding a Committee vote on the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act. Because the radical Left doesn't like some of the decisions made since Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined the Court, they have manufactured a crisis to provide cover for their attacks on the legitimacy of the Court. As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell pointed out in remarks on the Senate floor last week:
The Supreme Court is not in crisis when it refuses to reliably and predictably advance Democrats’ priorities. The Court is not in crisis when it puts the text of our laws above politics.
So what exactly would this "ethics" legislation do? Carrie Severino explained in May that the bill:
among other things would institute a process by which people could submit to a panel of appeals-court judges complaints about Supreme Court justices believed to be ethically compromised. The complaint could be based on a specific statutory or regulatory provision or simply allege “conduct that undermines the integrity of the Supreme Court.”
Such a system would bring chaos to the Court. If implemented, we could expect that on a regular basis, there would be a first round of litigation just about recusals. . .
The spectacle of the Whitehouse bill in action would amount to a mirror image of court-packing. And the bill’s 21 cosponsors to date include Markey, Bernie Sanders, and most of Whitehouse’s Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. Instead of adding justices to the Court—an objective that so far has failed to gain sufficient traction to pass—the new tactic is to subtract justices in key cases so that the Left can achieve the same result of getting its political agenda enacted through the federal judiciary. Both tactics amount to intimidation, a brazen power play that should be rejected by anyone truly concerned about the Court as an institution.
Thomas Jipping has laid out just how ludicrous this proposed system could play out:
The Left has been drumming into our heads that Supreme Court decisions that promote the wrong “policies” are evidence that the justices who produce them are, in some way or another, corrupt, unethical, or biased. In other words, decisions the Left doesn’t like are themselves proof that certain justices must not be impartial. Well, questions about a justice’s impartiality are one of the grounds for filing a complaint that five chief appeals court judges must then investigate.
Finally, whether any lower federal court judge must recuse from an individual case would be determined by a “reviewing panel” composed of “3 judges selected at random from judges of the United States who do not sit on the same court.”
That’s right: For the first time in American history, whether a particular judge may handle a particular case will be determined by judges elsewhere in the country. If that isn’t bizarre enough, whether a particular Supreme Court justice may participate in considering a particular case will be determined by his or her eight colleagues.
Democrats—in conjunction with the liberal media—are already setting the stage for this new system by launching as many attacks as possible against conservative Supreme Court Justices. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, which dubbed the Whitehouse bill the "Supreme Court Control Act," explained:
The supposed justification for this radical remaking of the Court is a series of media articles that reveal little more than that Justices have rich friends. They have on occasion even flown on private jets, oh my. . .
The partisan nature of this exercise is clear from the one-sided efforts at fact-finding. Last week Messrs. Whitehouse and Durbin sent a letter to Leonard Leo, who advised President Trump on judicial nominations and is friends with some of the conservative Justices.
The letter requests “an itemized list of all gifts, payments, and items of value . . . to any Justice of the Supreme Court or a member of the Justice’s family which you had a role in facilitating or arranging.” We could find no evidence of similar curiosity about the liberal Justices and their friends.
Unsurprisingly, concerns with liberal Supreme Court Justices like questions over Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's financial disclosures have conveniently been ignored by Democrats.
Leader McConnell sums it up:
[F]or all Democrats’ breathless fearmongering, the record of the Supreme Court’s latest term tells a very different story. By the numbers, the Court remains as ideologically diverse and unpredictable as even passing students of our Constitution know it was designed to be. . .
The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. And it should continue to do its job.
Join RNLA this Friday at 2:00 p.m. ET for a webinar on this latest scheme by the Democrats to undermine the Supreme Court. Register here!