Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has come under fire from a prominent Democrat in the Senate, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, for sharing his thoughts on a divisive bill that would impose a mandatory code of conduct on the nation’s top court.
Senator Durbin delivered a statement on Wednesday in which he strongly criticized Justice Alito, saying, “Let us be clear: Justice Alito is not the 101st member of the United States Senate.” His interference in Article I affairs is both unnecessary and counterproductive. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Justice Alito had harshly blasted a plan backed by Senator Durbin and his fellow Democrats that would impose new ethical restrictions on Supreme Court justices, prompting the senator to respond in kind.
Alito argued that the Constitution, and not Congress, created the Supreme Court. He was firm in his assertion that Congress has no constitutional authority to control the Supreme Court.
Senator Durbin strongly disagreed with Alito’s stance, claiming that the Senate Judiciary Committee has authority over the ethical conduct of Supreme Court Justices. According to him, “Ensuring the ethical conduct of the justices is of utmost importance to maintaining the Court’s legitimacy.” Even if the Supreme Court does not act, Durbin said he will continue to advocate for ethics reform.
The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act was drafted by Democratic senators working on the Judiciary Committee. Last month, with a vote along partisan lines, it was approved by the committee. The bill’s goals are to require Supreme Court justices to establish a code of conduct, generate a process for investigating alleged violations of the code and other laws, increase disclosure and transparency when a justice has a connection to a party or amicus before the Court, and require justices to publicly explain their recusal decisions.
Republicans and legal experts who are opposed to the idea point out that the Judicial Conference, a governing body that sets disclosure norms that all justices must follow, already has ethics rules in place. They argue that the proposed legislation is superfluous since it would only replicate existing regulations. They also worry that justices may be unfairly targeted by the law.
Louisiana Republican and Judiciary Committee member John Kennedy was extremely critical of the bill, calling it “dangerous” and “unserious.” He expressed concern that it would open the door to frivolous requests to remove a Supreme Court justice from their position.
The bill’s future appears bleak due to opposition from Republicans and concerns about getting 60 votes in the Senate. As Senator Kennedy put it jokingly, it’s “dead as a fried chicken,” implying it doesn’t have the necessary backing to move forward.