Democrat knocks Supreme Court as 'fact free zone,' says Congress can impose ethics rules

[Jilly_in_VA]

One of the most vocal Democratic critics of the Supreme Court claimed Sunday that the justices are operating in a "fact free zone" and said Congress "absolutely" has the power to impose ethical standards on the judicial branch, a response to Chief Justice John Roberts raising concerns about the separation of powers.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., slammed Justice Clarence Thomas for declining to recuse himself from cases dealing with the investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection. The justice's wife, Ginni Thomas, a longtime conservative political activist, advocated to keep Trump in the White House after he lost the 2020 election. Whitehouse said he doubted Justice Thomas was unaware of his wife's political activities.

"That is a question of fact," Whitehouse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press. "The problem with the Supreme Court is that they're in a fact-free zone as well as an ethics-free zone."

Ginni Thomas has said she doesn't discuss her political activities with her husband.

Roberts has suggested the justices themselves should police ethics and has flagged "separation of powers concerns" to suggest Congress' role in imposing policies on the court is limited. Whitehouse rejected that argument Sunday and many legal experts note Congress has always had a hand in establishing court procedures.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/05/28/supreme-court-sheldon-whitehouse-clarence-thomas-ethics/70264904007/

[bucolic_frolic]

1. SCOTUS does have separation of power issues - SCOTUS is always ruling on the other 2 branches

which is why the other 2 branches should start ignoring SCOTUS rulings. Stop the meddling.

Judicial review is a product of Marbury v. Madison, from what I recall. It doesn't have to be this way.

[erronis]

2. Not that I disagree, but wouldn't that also lead to the executive ignoring the legislative, etc.?

I have to admit that in the last few years, I feel that everything I accepted as "gospel" about the way the US government worked has been battered.

Of course it started with Nixon, or perhaps with Roosevelt or in the 1800s. But our grade-school textbooks made it seem so sensible and cast-in-stone. Zinn's People's History did a good job of debunking much of it but there is an awful lot more to debunk.

That's why the reactionaries don't want kids to learn real history.

[bucolic_frolic]

10. Executive Orders

We're already part way there, and look at what Governors do with them too

[COL Mustard]

5. We are getting dangerously close

To a total breakdown of our Constitutional system of government. There need to be some changes made to the system, but unfortunately those would require Constitutional amendments, and those are not likely to pass in our current situation.

[carpetbagger]

3. I'm going to keep saying it until I hear it on the tee vee...

A bought court does not earn the respect of stare decisis. Every ruling where Thomas was in the majority should be considered like a 4-4 or 4-3 ruling.

[Initech]

4. Unaware of her political activities? Yeah right.

Thomas I'm sure very well knew of them but is recusing himself because it's a conflict of interest.

[calimary]

6. My Ass Ginni doesn't discuss political activities with her husband.

She’s a devious person. She’ll always find a way around it. I bet they have their own private codespeak.

[Zeitghost]

8. Around what?

There is no requirement that she keep her political beliefs or activism to herself.

[soldierant]

7. "Ginni Thomas has said she doesn't discuss her political activities with her husband."

Yeah. She has also tweetedm "I've discusedthis with my best friend" -when she was organizing the fake elector scheme.

[Zeitghost]

9. Congress can not impose any rules on the SCotUS

They can impeach sitting justices for anything they find objectionable if they have the votes. Anything beyond that would require an amendment.