The other body with the power to investigate, and to punish if they find wrongdoing, is Congress.
Only someone who was confident in his faction's ability to control Congress forever would hamstring the Supreme Court. Corruption might just be the price (whether or not it is too high) that one pays to make certain that there are some speed bumps in the way of the House and Senate if they ever got too far out of whack.
Let's not lump together making it illegal for federal judges to accept gifts from people with business before the federal courts and limiting the power of the courts. Those are very different things.
In Article III Section 1 of the constitution says this about federal judges: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." Interpreting the constitution so that my bad behavior is not bad behavior any more looks to me like it oversteps the bounds, and since laws are only proposed and enacted by congress I'd say it's pretty clear that congress has the right and duty to define bad behavior.
And the mechanism is clear, if you think a judge committed some crime (or even an ethics violation that doesn't quite meet the proper definition of crime).
Impeach them.
The trouble with this is that some people want immediate results for their political whims without putting any work into it, without spending any political capital over it.
The tactics that have been used so far really do smack of limiting the power of the courts. This is understandable, in that the people wanting to do that see a Supreme Court filled with justices they do not agree with politically. If those people were to succeed, they will discover in 10 or 15 years that they did not have the eternal control of Congress that they thought they did, but they will have hamstrung the other branch of government that might have put a stop to the worst of the nonsense.
And that holds true no matter which party you think I'm talking about. It's "filibusters are inconvenient to me right now, let's get rid of them forever!" all over again.
Bribery of a public official as discussed in the linked article is a criminal statute. Judges like anyone else are not above the criminal law and in fact federal judges have been charged and in one case (Otto Kerner 1974) convicted of bribery while in office. Impeachment is a different matter.
In any case, charging judges who engage in criminal behavior with crimes is normal business of the Republic, as is writing laws defining bribery, and the penalties. Redefining a criminal statute so that one can engage in previously illegal behavior stinks and probably does warrant impeachment.
Democrat administration, independent DOJ. The House is Democrat majority, they can send articles of impeachment. They've had recent practice.
If this is bribery, just do it. Quit whining about it. Instead, they call an entirely different justice to testify, as if there's anything to say. Is that a fishing expedition, an attempt to embarrass the institution on public tv, or both?
No reform is needed here. All the tools you need are at your disposal. Go for it.
Even so, there's room to negotiate. Biden can't replace Thomas without the Senate's ok, and they might go for it if they got to choose the new one (and they might even be worried that if they wait, it'd work out worse for them). Biden makes sure that their favorite isn't bugshit psycho, so even though the new one's still conservative, it's an improvement.
When the Democrats signal that they're never willing to negotiate, of course the other side will take the same tact... "Why would we want to anyway!?!" all sour grapes.
Back when Trump was still in office, they might have had a successful impeachment with a little negotiation. The Democrats had something to offer (the presidency), and the GOP didn't much care for him (they just didn't want to end up the losers if they helped the Dems). Promise to impeach Pence first, put in someone the GOP likes as VP. Then impeach Trump, their favorite candidate moves into the White House. There was even enough leverage to get Trump to agree to the VP replacement (both carrot and stick). Everyone (including the American people) could have won.
Wasted opportunities because it's more important to beat the other team than for everyone to win. Even worse results 20 years down the line because you're all too busy wanting to tear apart every check and balance for some temporary advantage. Really are getting the government you all deserve.
> Really are getting the government you all deserve.
By this I take it that you're not American? No offense, but your analysis while logical from an ends justify the means perspective, is just a fantasy. It's not a realistic, as it ignores the entire cult dynamic of the MAGA movement, which is well-documented at this point. Republican inaction on the worst aspects of Trumpism and the MAGA movement are not explained by "they just didn't want to end up the losers if they helped the Dems". It doesn't explain the retconning of the January 6th insurrection from Republicans at all levels of government, and the media. It doesn't explain the lunacy of the 118th Congress.
Sorry, the idea that, but for Democrats, Republicans would have reigned in the worst and most powerful within their own ranks is simply preposterous. Republicans are responsible for their own party, plain and simple.
> Only someone who was confident in his faction's ability to control Congress forever would hamstring the Supreme Court.
I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Especially in light that it takes a supermajority of the Senate to remove someone from the court, not just control of the Senate.
> that one pays to make certain that there are some speed bumps in the way of the House and Senate if they ever got too far out of whack.
Direct election of members of congress is the better speedbump.
> Only someone who was confident in his faction's ability to control Congress forever would hamstring the Supreme Court
Codes of conduct don’t constrain the Court, they constrain individual judges and justices. That’s the advantage of putting the enforcement within the judiciary, versus the executive (prosecution) or legislature (impeachment).
Corruption means there won’t be speed bumps, at least for certain legislation that appeals to those doing the corrupting. That’s a bit part of the problem here.
Only someone who was confident in his faction's ability to control Congress forever would hamstring the Supreme Court. Corruption might just be the price (whether or not it is too high) that one pays to make certain that there are some speed bumps in the way of the House and Senate if they ever got too far out of whack.