[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)] [Senate] [Pages S1152-S1153] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Date: 2023-04-18
Chamber: SENATE
Mr. DURBIN: the highest Court in America should not have the lowest standards when it comes to ethics, but for too long that has been the case for the U.S. Supreme Court. It definitely needs to change. While the Senate was out of session for the Easter recess, the independent nonprofit news organization ProPublica published a series of stunning reports. They found that a billionaire real estate developer and prominent Republican donor, Harlan Crow, has given Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas nearly 20 years of undisclosed luxury gifts and getaways: a lavish yacht vacation in Indonesia, private plane trips, visits to a deluxe mountainside resort, and more. Then, just days ago, ProPublica found that in 2014, Crow's company bought properties owned by Thomas and his family, including the house where the Justice's mother still lives. These transactions were also hidden, undisclosed, even though Federal law clearly requires that they be reported publicly. Let's be clear. Serving as a Federal judge, and especially a Supreme Court Justice, is one of the highest honors in the Nation that we can confer on an individual. But above all, it is a public service. Judges and Justices are entrusted by the American people to serve the public interest and administer equal justice under the law. That is why taxpayers and not billionaire donors fund judicial salaries, courthouses, and operations. Judges have a responsibility to put service to others ahead of their own personal self-interest. But the conduct revealed in ProPublica's reporting tells a much different story. They show a Justice accepting secret, lavish luxury trips and real estate purchases from a wealthy donor with interests affected by the Court. This is conduct we cannot tolerate, whether it is from a mayor, a city council member, or other elected official, and we certainly shouldn't tolerate it in the highest Court of the land. The Supreme Court needs to clean up its act and fast. Throughout our history, ethics scandals at every level of government have inspired reform. Congress has repeatedly amended ethics laws governing the House and Senate to ensure that there is transparency and disclosure for the trips we take and the donations we receive. We have a Code of Official Conduct that we must follow and Ethics Committees that provide guidance and oversight for our activities. These committees can launch investigations and penalize misconduct when it occurs. Congress has also passed numerous laws that affect the operation of the Federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court. We pass appropriations bills each and every year to cover judges' paychecks and the operations of our courthouses. We have enacted financial disclosure laws like the Ethics and Government Act and recusal laws like 28 U.S.C. 455 that apply to all Federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices. We have long known there are shortcomings in the current ethics standards for the highest Court in the land, the Supreme Court. For example, the Justices do not consider themselves bound by the Code of Conduct that every other Federal judge follows. Additionally, they do not have clear and uniform processes for making and explaining their decisions on whether to recuse themselves from a case where there is a conflict of interest or an appearance of one. And as the recent ProPublica series has revealed, some Justices simply aren't telling the American people about the gifts and travel that they are accepting. Frankly, the excuses we have heard thus far from Justice Thomas are laughable. Claiming that a private luxury yacht in Indonesia from a major political donor was ``personal hospitality'' that didn't need to be disclosed is an absurd conclusion, and it is insulting to the American people who expect Justices to be held to the same standards as anyone else in government. That is why reform is essential. It is critical to our justice system and to our democracy that the American people have confidence that the judges and especially the Supreme Court Justices can't be bought and that they are serving the public interest and not their own personal interests. In the past, Congress has stepped up to strengthen court ethics. Just last June, we passed the bipartisan Courthouse Ethics and Transparency Act which applies the STOCK Act's reporting and disclosure requirements to Federal judges and Justices. But the Supreme Court doesn't need to wait on Congress to clean up its act. The Justices could take action today if they wanted to, and if the Court fails to act, Congress must.  In the coming days, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the need to restore public confidence in the highest Court of our land, the Supreme Court. This won't be our first hearing on the topic. We have held anumber of important hearings over the years on the need for judicial ethics reform, including an important hearing in the last Congress on the Court Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Some on the Republican side may claim that this focus on ethics is just a reaction to decisions being handed down by the rightwing activist majority of the Supreme Court. To them I say, check the record. I have been at this pursuit for more than 10 years. I wrote a letter, joined by Democratic colleagues, to the Chief Justice 11 years ago urging him to adopt a Code of Conduct. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing in 2011 with Justices Scalia and Breyer. During that hearing, I asked them about Supreme Court ethics, which was in the news because of troubling reports even then of gifts being made by Mr. Harlan Crow. Unfortunately, Chief Justice Roberts rejected our call to act 10 years ago; and it appears that Harlan Crow took that as a sign that he should ante up and increase his largesse. Is it any wonder that we face a crisis of public confidence in the Supreme Court? Our Constitution established a system of checks and balances between the branches of government, and it established a system in which no person is above the law. There are few positions in our Federal Government more elevated than Supreme Court Justices, but Justices are public servants, and they must conduct themselves in that manner. Our job in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and in the Senate, is to make certain that they do--nothing less. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.