"Nice security you have, it would be a shame if..."
-
I would like to know the context. Who threatened to remove security funding and when?
-
I would like to know the context. Who threatened to remove security funding and when?
@LuFins-Dad said in "Nice security you have, it would be a shame if...":
I would like to know the context. Who threatened to remove security funding and when?
Fifteen members of the Democratic Caucus have proposed language to be attached to next year’s Supreme Court funding bill requiring the court to adopt new processes for recusals and ethics allegations—essentially making the court answerable to Congress.
“The Supreme Court should have a code of ethics to govern the conduct of its members, and its refusal to adopt such standards has contributed to eroding public confidence in the highest court in the land,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., told the Washington Post. “It is unacceptable that the Supreme Court has exempted itself from the accountability that applies to all other members of our federal courts, and I believe Congress should act to remedy this problem.”
-
Given that the DOJ chose not to enforce the laws against demonstrating at the justices' homes, it's not an unreasonable belief.
-
That link doesn’t show what he’s saying. Putting ethical reform in their funding bill isn’t “threatening their security”.
@jon-nyc said in "Nice security you have, it would be a shame if...":
That link doesn’t show what he’s saying. Putting ethical reform in their funding bill isn’t “threatening their security”.
It sounds like there was a letter sent to the Justices addressing the issue.
-
@jon-nyc said in "Nice security you have, it would be a shame if...":
That link doesn’t show what he’s saying. Putting ethical reform in their funding bill isn’t “threatening their security”.
It sounds like there was a letter sent to the Justices addressing the issue.
@LuFins-Dad said in "Nice security you have, it would be a shame if...":
It sounds like there was a letter sent to the Justices addressing the issue.
The letter addressed "appropriations".
=-=-=-=-=-
We write to request your support for including in the Fiscal Year 2024 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill language directing the Supreme Court of the United States to adopt more stringent and transparent ethics rules, as well as meaningful procedures to enforce those rules....
In the absence of such willingness, Congress has broad authority to compel the Supreme Court to institute these reforms, which would join other requirements already legislatively mandated.12 And Congress’s appropriations power is one tool for achieving these changes. During recent “interbranch disputes” between Congress and “a recalcitrant Executive Branch,” some courts have encouraged Congress to “withhold appropriations,” which can act as a “powerful incentive” for action within the executive branch.13 Nothing in the Constitution mandates that the judiciary be treated any differently when Congress is faced with judicial recalcitrance.14
Accordingly, we respectfully urge you to include the following language in the FY 2024 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill:
“Of these funds, $10 million cannot be obligated unless the Chief Justice notifies the Committee on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress that the Supreme Court has put into effect a public code of ethics for justices of the Court, including policies addressing, at a minimum, circumstances requiring disqualifications and recusals, the receipt and disposition of requests related to disqualifications and recusals, and the publication of such dispositions and the reasons therefor; and procedures, modeled after the procedures set forth in chapter 16 of title 28, United States Code, for receiving and investigating complaints alleging violations of such public code of ethics or other misconduct by justices of the Court.”
The court requested $10M for various security measures:
With a new annual budget request posted Thursday, the Supreme Court told Congress that it needs nearly $6 million in new security funding to expand the protection justices receive following threats to the court last summer.
“Ongoing threat assessments show evolving risks that require continuous protection,” the court said in its budget request. “Additional funding would provide for contract positions, eventually transitioning to full-time employees, that will augment capabilities of the Supreme Court police force and allow it to accomplish its protective mission.”
The new budget documents referenced that additional funding and said with the next round of annual spending, $4 million of what it requested would go to the “annualization of police pay adjustments and protective activities that were funded” with the supplemental security bill.
So, no there was no direct threat of cutting security. However, SCOTUS requested $10M in ADDITIONAL security. The letter states that it might withhold $10M in the budget for SCOTUS.
I'm sure that's a coincidence.
