House investigation airs ethics charges against Supreme Court

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (DNY) told news outlets, Including POLITICOA lobbying campaign targeting the justices has raised doubts about how the Supreme Court made its earth-shattering decision to strike down the federal constitutional right to an abortion.

“We now wonder how much this decision, which ends decades of established precedent, was influenced by organized wealth donors and lobbying to move conservative judges to the right,” Nadler said.

Nadler and other Democrats said Schenck’s account underscores the need for legislation to impose a binding code of ethics on the Supreme Court.

“Supreme Court justices cannot, and should not be expected to, self-police their own ethics,” Nadler said.

Schenck said his efforts to build relationships with conservative justices by hosting them over meals and at private homes took advantage of the high court’s lax ethics rules.

“There are clear rules that govern one’s interaction with the branches of representation … none of which apply at the Supreme Court,” Schenck said, adding, “We knew there was a lot of freedom and latitude there, and we did our job. The judiciary, at that level, is very easy.”

However, Mark Pauletta, a lawyer and former Supreme Court clerk called as a GOP witness, blasted Schenck as a “con man” and argued that he should not be trusted because he has publicly admitted to lying at times during his lobbying campaign.

“Schenck’s entire plan is an outrage and has zero effect on any justice,” Paoletta declared.

Pallotta, who worked on the Senate confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas and represented his wife, Virginia Thomas, in connection with the January 6 House committee hearing, said it was absurd to think that justices like Thomas or Samuel Alito would be under pressure. To be more conservative on issues like abortion rights.

“You are insulting the court and encouraging the public to question the court and its rulings,” Pallotta added. This political attack on the court is a dangerous game.

No one from the Supreme Court testified at Thursday’s hearing, but the court has issued statements denying many of Schenck’s allegations. The court did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation and was allegedly asked “repeatedly” to send a witness but failed to do so.

Schenck also said he was aware of the 2014 decision in a widely viewed Supreme Court case about the rights of businesses with religious owners to avoid providing contraception coverage under Obamacare. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. Schenck says he learned about three weeks before the decision was released that Alito was writing the opinion and that religious business owners had won.

Schenck said the normally confidential information came from Gayle Wright following a dinner she and her husband had at Alito’s home in Alexandria. Alito issued a statement last month. Entertainment lobby decision before its publication.

Republican lawmakers have sought to undermine Schenck, accusing him of dishonesty and admitting that he propagated “consequential lies” before breaking with the religious right years ago.

“I look back and realize that a lot of things I declared weren’t true,” he admitted Thursday. “I didn’t know then.”

Republicans blamed their Democratic colleagues for calling attention to the 2014 leak, while calling for no investigation into how. POLITICO obtained a draft comment In June, the High Court ruled in the abortion case. Alito also authored the decision, which was considered a major victory for conservatives.

“You’ve done zero investigations into it,” complained Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.).

“No one is hearing about a real leak, but here we are hearing about a fake leak,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

Jordan also told POLITICO Recently reportedAfter months of investigation, he “couldn’t find anyone who had heard of it Entertainment lobby A decision will be taken directly from Alito or his wife before publication in late June 2014.

Jordan read the section of the essay aloud twice, though he omitted the word “directly” in both instances. Biggs then read the passage in its entirety.

Despite heated exchanges between Democratic and GOP lawmakers, members of both parties said they wanted the Supreme Court to require some protocol.

“If you could buy the Supreme Court … the left would be better off than us,” said Rep. Matt Gates (R-Fla.).

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s husband accused Democrats of “gaslighting” because they were less interested in ethical practices when he continued to practice law after being sworn in to the court.

However, Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) said that’s no reason to fail to move forward with legislation to impose an ethics code on the high court.

“We’re talking about it now. Sometimes we’re late,” she said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.