Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise because now is the time to pass Senator Whitehouse's legislation to require the Supreme Court of the United States to adopt a binding and enforceable code of ethics, create a process for investigating misconduct, and improve the disclosure and transparency requirements for the Justices on our Nation's highest Court. I thank my colleagues Senators Whitehouse and Durbin for their leadership on this issue.

I have long believed that rule of law is central to our democracy and that preserving public trust in our institutions is vital to the health of our Republic. It is important that the American people have confidence that the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are making decisions based on the facts and the law, not private interests.

The Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States know this, too. In fact, the very first canon that the Supreme Court set out in its code of conduct last November states that ``a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States should maintain and observe high standards of conduct in order to preserve the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary.''

This isn't the first time that Congress has had to address the need for transparency and ethical requirements for government officials. In 1978, in the wake of Watergate, Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act, which requires certain public officials, including Supreme Court Justices and members of the executive branch, to make disclosures about their financial interests, including income they receive from a source outside the Federal Government, gifts, debts they owe, and sales of certain real estate and stocks.

Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen an alarming rise in reports of ethically questionable behavior by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States in regard to accepting and not disclosing gifts as required under the law. For example, we learned that in 2014, Justice Thomas allowed a billionaire to buy his mom's house and fix it up for her--and pay for the Justice and his wife to take lavish vacations. We also know that same billionaire paid for Justice Thomas to attend a trip to Malaysia on a private jet and a superyacht. That trip was valued at over $500,000 and was not disclosed by Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas was required to report these gifts, but he didn't. Instead, we only found out about it through the work of investigative journalists.

There needs to be an enforceable code of ethics and mechanisms to investigate, and if necessary, take corrective action when the Justices don't take their reporting obligations seriously. That is how we preserve the American people's confidence in the institutions of government, including the Supreme Court.

Just like transparency, judges are supposed to be above politics and avoid even the appearance of bias. In 1974, Congress passed a law requiring the Supreme Court's Justices, as well as other Federal judges, ``to recuse themselves when their impartiality might be reasonably questioned.''

This was reiterated by the Supreme Court's own code of conduct adopted in November which states that a Justice should disqualify himself or herself where they have ``a personal bias or prejudice concerning a case.''

In fact, the Justices are no strangers to the practice of recusing themselves when there is an appearance of impropriety. For 50 years, the Justices have followed the recusal law. For example, in 1995, Justice Thomas recused himself from United States v. Virginia because of his son's enrollment at Virginia Military Institute.

If the Justices of the Supreme Court sat on any other Federal court, the clear and enforceable code of ethics would ensure that they recuse when their impartiality might be reasonably questioned. But at the Supreme Court, the decision to recuse is up to each Justice, and there is no explanation required.

These examples demonstrate why Senator Whitehouse's bill--the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act--is so important. It would require the Court to adopt an enforceable code of ethics. It requires that Justices disqualify themselves from cases in certain situations where their impartiality could be reasonably questioned such as if they have received gifts from parties appearing before the Court. It requires that Justices disclose the same information concerning gifts, income, and reimbursements as required by Members of Congress. And it provides for a process by which individuals may file complaints that a Justice has violated the code.

This is hardly a radical proposal and this isn't about attacking one Justice or another. The majority of Americans--75 percent according to a recent report--support a binding ethics code for the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

I call on all my colleagues--Democratic, Republican, and Independent--to come together, pass this bill, and help bring the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States in line with the ethical requirements and accountability procedures that every other Federal judge in this country already abides by.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source