Lindsey Graham Doesn't Care About What The Constitution Says When It Gets In The Way Of The Republican-Controlled Supreme Court
After all, why should Congress care about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court?
(Photo by Demetrius Freeman-Pool/Getty Images)
It was barely a year ago that Senator Lindsey Graham seemed to acknowledge that something needed to be done about the ethics scandals that plague the Supreme Court. In the interceding time, those scandals have only gotten worse, so you might think he’d respond with horror at the corruption and bias evident in unelected superlegislators with lifetime appointments. But no.
The gifts taken by Clarence Thomas are valued in the millions of dollars — those he’s finally admitted to, anyway. And Samuel Alito has a penchant for flying flags favored by insurrectionists — and still refused to recuse himself from January 6th-related cases. (What was that about the mere appearance of impropriety?) Plus he wants “to return our country to a place of godliness” and gets real worked up at the audacity of real journalism. (The First Amendment says what?) And yet the senator from South Carolina is throwing his lot behind the right wing of the Court and made an appearance on Fox News crowing about his effort to stymie binding ethical rules.
A Law Firm Checklist For Successful Transaction Management
What follows is a baffling and infuriating series of conservative talking points designed to solidify the power of the current Republican-appointed justices on the Court.
When asked specifically if there should be a binding code of ethics on the Supreme Court, Graham responded with “The worst thing that could happen is for the United States Senate and the House to determine what cases the Supreme Court hears.” What is he even talking about? Recusal standards and ethics codes do not “determine what cases the Supreme Court hears.” And, besides, that’s far from “the worst thing.” Didn’t Graham learn about jurisdiction stripping in law school? It’s right there in article III, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution that the “United States Senate and the House” can “determine what cases the Supreme Court hears.” But I guess in the year of our lord 2024 it doesn’t really matter what the founders originally thought about the laws they were creating, amirite?
He continued saying that proposals to impose ethics were an effort to “micromanage the Roberts court.” I think every Dem in Congress would be thrilled to death if the Chief devised an enforceable code of ethics and bowed out of the matter. Unfortunately, that is not the reality we live in.
And what’s a Republican rant without some playing the victim? “They’re trying to destroy Alito and Thomas because they don’t like the fact they’re conservative judges,” Graham said. Sigh. It’s really just because that’s where the problems are. Notice for all the controversy surrounding Brett Kavanaugh’s past, his name isn’t part of the current discussion. When Jane Roberts’s job was discussed as a possible ethical problem for the Chief Justice, plenty were willing to say that was smoke and no fire. Plus questions *were* asked of the liberal justices, but there was simply less there even when conservatives tried to dig up dirt.
Sponsored
Not All Legal AI Is Created Equal
How To Build And Manage Your Law Firm Rate Sheet
How Savvy Lawyers Build Their Law Firm Rate Sheet
Not All Legal AI Is Created Equal
Sometime there’s no conspiracy, just corruption.
You can watch the interview here.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.
Sponsored
Trust The Process: How To Build And Manage Workflows In Law Firms
