[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2092-2093]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   IMPARTIALITY AND THE SUPREME COURT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) for 3 minutes.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on a day that we're talking 
about the continuing resolution, I want to talk about a body that may 
someday be judging the continuing resolution--the Supreme Court. There 
is perhaps nothing more important to the preservation of our democracy 
than the continued guaranteed impartiality of our Supreme Court. It's a 
uniquely American institution; it's been given enormous power to 
invalidate American laws; and it needs to be dispensed with complete 
blind justice, blind to outside influence.
  However, this Nation's confidence in the blind justice of the Supreme 
Court has been badly shaken recently by a series of revelations 
regarding possible conflicts of interest by Justice Scalia and Justice 
Thomas in the Citizens United case. This landmark 5-4 decision 
overturned restrictions on corporate funding in elections that had been 
in place since 1947, and immediately thereafter, millions and millions 
of dollars in shadowy special interest group donations flowed into 
American campaigns. Two of the main benefactors of these groups were 
Charles and David Koch, billionaire brothers who operate a Kansas-based 
energy business. They spent about $2.6 billion that we know about in 
the 2010 election cycle and likely a lot more in anonymous donations.
  In addition to funding these outside groups, they also organize a lot 
of conferences in which they gather people of like mind to discuss 
their radical views and plot strategies to benefit their interests. Now 
if I were to ask somebody on a main street in my district if they would 
be comfortable with a Supreme Court justice attending a conference

[[Page 2093]]

like this, having their plane flight and the hotel all paid for by the 
special interests, I know what their answer would be. They'd say, no 
way. Yet Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas did just that and they 
thought it was just fine. They didn't recuse themselves from the 
Citizens United decision at all.
  But here's the real problem. This could be just an isolated problem 
to the Citizens United case. Or it could be much more widespread, with 
justices conflicted on several fronts, refusing to disclose their 
conflicts or recuse themselves when they have actual conflicts of 
interest. But we have no idea, because right now there is no law 
requiring Supreme Court justices to disclose their conflicts of 
interest as is required of all other Federal justices.

                              {time}  1120

  I don't believe we should be meddling in the day-to-day business of 
the Supreme Court. I get why there is great wisdom in separating 
legislative and judicial functions. But there's no undue burden in just 
requiring sunlight on Supreme Court proceedings.
  So when we return to Washington after the recess, I will be 
introducing legislation to do just that, to implement a few reasonable 
reforms to add greater transparency and disclosure requirements on the 
Supreme Court. I hope my colleagues will join me.
  My legislation will apply the Judicial Conference's Code of Conduct 
to the Supreme Court, which now applies to all other Federal judges. It 
will require the Justices to simply publicly disclose why they've 
recused themselves from a particular case. And it will ask the Court to 
develop a simple process so that the parties to a case can request the 
Court to decide whether a particular Justice has a conflict of 
interest.
  I think this is an important step forward for transparency of our 
democracy and of the Supreme Court, and I ask my colleagues to join me 
in this important legislation.

                          ____________________