Hypocritical Democratic Senators Are Bullying Supreme Court Justices, Yet Could Use Ethics Lessons Themselves

The concerted effort by the press and Democrats to delegitimize the Supreme Court is the most consequential attack on our institutions in memory. Make no mistake. The “Supreme Court Ethics Reform” hearing this week was meant to discredit the high court and slander justices with innuendo. Nothing else. Democrats are angry because the court happens to occasionally uphold basic constitutional principles of American governance. The recent hit pieces on Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch were shoddy and transparently partisan. They did not uncover any conflict of interest or corruption. They exist to give politicians fodder and hackish outlets like the Washington Post the freedom to contend that the Senate is “consider(ing) strengthening ethics rules for the Supreme Court in response to a cascade of revelations about unreported lavish travel and real estate deals.”Most Post readers will, no doubt, be unaware that there has been no “unreported” lavish travel or real estate deals. There is one amended note in a financial disclosure by Thomas — who had no ethical or legal obligation to check in with Democrats whenever he travels. In Politico’s hit on Justice Gorsuch, the reporter didn’t even know how to read a basic disclosure form. Everything, including a real estate deal that Justice Gorsuch was allegedly attempting to conceal, was reported.The fact that the same histrionic coverage did not accompany Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s amended financial disclosures in 2022 nor Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s amended financial disclosures in 2021 nor Justice Stephen Breyer’s long-term travel arrangements, which were often reimbursed by the wealthy Pritzker family, is no accident.The committee chairman, Senator Durbin, contends he merely wants the justices to abide by the ethics rules that Congress has drafted for itself. If they did, it would mean a complete degradation of standards in the court.Because while there has not been a scintilla of evidence offered by anyone that the originalist justices have altered their judicial philosophy or approach for personal benefit, one could not say that same thing about the leader of the delegitimization effort, Mr. Durbin, who, according to a 2014 Chicago Tribune investigation, used his office and power to help enrich his lobbyist wife:Among the areas of overlap in the Durbins’ careers: her firm getting a one-year contract with a housing nonprofit group around the time the senator went to bat for the organization and others like it; a state university receiving funds earmarked by Mr. Durbin when his wife was its lobbyist; and Mr. Durbin arranging federal money for a public health nonprofit when his wife was seeking state support for the same group.Mr. Durbin did not pay a fine or face any repercussions for this conflict of interest. Then again, do you know how many officials the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has issued disciplinary sanctions to since 2007? Zero.Not another member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, whose husband, an investment banker, Richard Blum, made some amazingly prescient trades in the biotech sector during Covid.Not another member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Blumenthal, and his wife, who happened to trade shares of Robinhood before calling for an investigation and then lie, not surprisingly, about the family’s significant stock ownership.Not another member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Whitehouse, who not only traded health care stock through his and his family’s accounts while pushing to pass a medical bill directly related to that sector but also used his seat to prop up a green energy concern that supported his campaign.Nor another member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Welch, who was buying stock in a German coronavirus test producer after hearing intelligence briefings on the matter.Nor Mr. Durbin himself, who unloaded investments right after a private meeting with the then-Treasury secretary and Federal Reserve chairman during the 2008 financial collapse.After years of slandering members of the court for the purpose of delegitimizing them, Democrats will bring up the fact that the polls show a diminishing trust in the Supreme Court as if it happened in a vacuum or as if they did not intend for this to happen. This is their doing. They are the ones creating the perception of corruption where there is none. And why? Because the Constitution is a hindrance to their agenda. It’s that simple.Mr. Durbin tried to get Chief Justice Roberts to participate in his partisan clown show, claiming it was time “for Congress to accept its responsibility to establish an enforceable code of ethics for the Supreme Court, the only agency of our government without it.” The Supreme Court is an equal branch of the government, not an agency for Mr. Durbin to bully. And, outside of impeaching someone, Congress has no power to dictate how it conducts business. If anything, Congress should be looking to the justices to learn how to act decently.Creators.com

Hypocritical Democratic Senators Are Bullying Supreme Court Justices, Yet Could Use Ethics Lessons Themselves

More from the New York Sun

Collectivists Turn May Day Into a High Holiday

U.S. Floats Netanyahu–Aoun Meeting as Path to IDF Exit From Lebanon

Louisiana Lawmakers Advance Bill Protecting College Faculty Members’ Ability To Engage in the ‘Rigorous Exchange of Ideas’

More from the New York Sun

Collectivists Turn May Day Into a High Holiday

U.S. Floats Netanyahu–Aoun Meeting as Path to IDF Exit From Lebanon

Louisiana Lawmakers Advance Bill Protecting College Faculty Members’ Ability To Engage in the ‘Rigorous Exchange of Ideas’

Assassination Attempt Exposes Danger of Liberal Bias — and Outright Trump-Hatred — at America’s Universities

The Marriage Gap Is the Biggest Cause of Inequality in America, but Gets the Least Attention

Kentucky Derby Arrives With History, Heartbreak, and Change in the Air

Actress Takes a Beating From Harvey Weinstein’s Lawyers Over Secret ‘Love Note’: It’s Latest Example of Why This Rape Case Is So Hard To Prove

A Tale of Moral Courage in World War II, Chronicled Through Cartoons