A tale of two political “witch hunts”: Boris Johnson and Donald Trump

 

Gordon L. Weil

It looks like the same thing is happening on both sides of the Atlantic.  Or maybe not.

In the U.K., the country’s political leader has been forced from office for lying about his own lawbreaking.  In the U.S., the country’s once and possibly future political leader faces criminal charges for lying about his own lawbreaking.

As similar as the situations may seem, there are a couple of major differences.  In the comparison, the U.S. seems to come in second to the Brits.

When he was prime minister, Boris Johnson laid out strict rules for responding to the Covid pandemic.  They prohibited large gatherings and required social distancing.  The result was that when Covid killed a parent, the children could be banned from holding a funeral.

While the public obeyed, the prime minister and his government staged parties and ignored the rules. When their partying was revealed, for the first time ever, a prime minister faced police punishment and paid fines for attending.  But he repeatedly assured Parliament that, despite his behavior, no rules had been broken.

Strong evidence revealed that his statements were dubious.  A neutral government review official found he had broken his own rules, and he was forced to step down as prime minister.  He remained a Member of Parliament, primed to make a comeback when, as he expected, his successor faltered.

A special parliamentary committee then looked into whether he had lied to the House of Commons. The committee included a majority of his fellow Conservatives and was chaired by a member from the opposition Labor Party.

In its unanimous report, the committee found that he had lied to Parliament and recommended he lose his seat. He promptly resigned from the House, while attacking what he called the committee’s “witch hunt.”  In an overwhelming House vote to approve the report, many in his party joined the opposition parties in condemning him.  Only seven opposed the report.

Most Conservatives did not vote.  While not formally opposing Johnson, the nonvoters also declined to support him.

The Conservatives who voted placed loyalty to Parliament ahead of support for their former leader.  They acknowledged that he had lied, even though he had led them to an overwhelming victory in the last elections.  His own party probably killed any chance for his comeback.

The decision to protect the integrity of the House was made by the House itself.  The political system could restore itself, when it set aside partisan politics.  Johnson’s few supporters vented, because they knew they could not win.

In the U.S., President Trump was twice impeached by the House of Representatives, but not convicted by the Senate.  In the second case, focusing on Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol insurrection, for the first time in history any senator of an impeached president’s own party voted to convict him.  Otherwise, pure partisanship prevailed.

Out of office, Trump has been criminally charged with taking with him after his term highly classified documents and falsely claiming that he had returned them all.  He has attacked the Special Prosecutor handling the case, calling it a “witch hunt.”  He may face additional charges of having caused the insurrection and using illegal methods to overturn his election defeat.

Like Johnson, Trump has taken no responsibility for his actions and repeatedly was misleading about them.  Unlike Johnson’s Conservatives, Trump’s Republicans will not put aside partisan support for their celebrity leader and accept the political risk, even if such action would protect the integrity of Congress and the presidency. 

In Britain, Parliament provided a political solution to a political problem, but partisanship makes that impossible in the U.S.  Now, facing charges in court, Trump and his allies seek to politicize the independent judicial system by falsely accusing President Biden of directing the Justice Department to prosecute the former president.

In short, Trump’s Republicans block political solutions made by political institutions while trying to discredit the judiciary by claiming the legal process is itself political, though without any evidence.  If they can succeed, they could undermine trust in government.

The three branches of government are meant to keep a check on one another.  That process is supposed to promote public confidence in the constitutional system.  If government is now boiling down to control by the supporters of a single person with authoritarian views, public confidence will erode.

Public opinion seems to have lost respect for Congress and is losing respect for the courts. The American system was intended to prevent the domination of an unquestioned leader through a system that would protect a broad and diverse public interest.  Yet Trump asserts his right to almost unlimited power.

In Britain, the target of the American Revolution, Parliament appears to have accepted the idea of government accountability found in the U.S. Constitution.  Americans risk losing it.

Trump in trouble: undeniable facts and unanswered questions

Gordon L. Weil

Paradise for pundits and partisan politicians.  That’s the federal case charging former President Donald Trump with keeping classified documents.

His indictment has also launched attacks by Trump’s supporters against anybody they believe seeks to disrupt their leader’s way back to the White House.

The Republican Right, which now dominates the GOP, and the former president go after the prosecutor and President Biden, who they say is the power behind the indictment.   For them, the best defense is counterattack.  The Democrats, fearful of offending anybody, have done little to defend themselves, letting the case speak for itself.

Despite the counterattacks, some facts are beyond doubt.  Despite the fervor of the GOP Right and the hasty analyses of the armies of pundits, many questions remain to be answered.  Here are some known facts and open questions.

Trump took classified documents with him to Mar-a-Lago, the Florida resort he calls home, when he left the White House.  These documents, listed in the indictment, contain sensitive intelligence.  That makes his actions and the pursuit of the documents more than a mere paper chase.

Evidence that Trump knowingly kept sensitive documents and tried to keep them from the National Archives has come from his own aides, people helping him in these efforts, not from his opponents.

Jack Smith, the federal prosecutor, has proceeded in a systematic manner.  He has sought the indictment in the federal District Court closest to Mar-a-Lago, even accepting the risk that he would draw the judge who has previously been blatantly favorable to Trump.  Smith is a professional prosecutor not a political appointee.

There is no evidence that either Biden or Attorney-General Merrick Garland gave instructions to Smith.  As Special Prosecutor, he was meant to be insulated from political pressure.  It may seem logical to the right-wing GOP that Biden is behind the indictment, but partisan logic is not enough.  Evidence is needed.

Possibly to minimize the problem, Trump has suggested that he could declassify documents merely by thinking they were declassified.  Otherwise, why would he do that?  Also there is a formal declassification procedure, because the documents would have become public.  But if only he knew, how would people learn they were now open?

His reasons for keeping the documents remain unclear.  He kept them for many months after his term ended and did nothing with them during all that time. Why risk indictment if there is no good reason for holding the documents?

Trump claims that the charges are a Democratic effort to undermine his reelection campaign.  Should the Justice Department never bring a criminal case against a person who has announced their candidacy for public office?  Or just for president?  Or just Trump?  Exempting candidates could mean a person could avoid criminal prosecution by continually running for public office. 

Assuming the indictment is politically motivated, does that mean the serious charges should not be pursued?  Unlike Smith, some prosecutors are elected and may act out of partisan or personal bias. The same is true for some judges, whether appointed by politicians or elected.  That’s one reason the judicial system includes juries, composed of average people who don’t make a career of it.

In the current situation, Trump has tried to expand the bounds of the judicial process by making personal attacks.  At the outset, he questioned whether Jack Smith was the prosecutor’s real name.  What was he implying?  He has resorted to labeling Smith a “thug,” perhaps because Trump thinks he’s too tough.  It’s doubtful he’ll be that critical of his friendly judge.

The main argument used by Trump and his supporters is that the Justice Department and the FBI discriminate against him and let Democrats off.  The message is that Democrats get away with illegal acts, so Republicans ought to be allowed to do the same.  There’s no point in trying to distinguish the facts of each case; the generalization is as far as we need to go.

This reaction to being criticized or charged has come to be called “what-about-ism.”  In fact, it is based on the belief that “two wrongs make a right.”  That’s contrary to much traditional religious and family teaching.  It is also the way to completely destroy the judicial system.  If crimes must go unpunished because somebody else got away with them, where does this end?

In case after case, Trump stirs conflict by using political and personal attacks to minimize the charges.   He and his supporters resort to lying, mob action, or what-about-ism.  Possible criminal action should be judged according to law.  Period. That’s the case the Democrats could be making a lot more forcefully.

This case and its opponents place the judicial system itself in grave danger. It may not be perfect, but mob rule isn’t better and, despite its claims, it isn’t democracy.

  

Biden, Trump too old to lead the U.S.

 

Gordon L. Weil

I like old people. I am one.

But I believe that we should not run the government.

Do seniors have the ability to govern?   From meeting the job’s formal requirements to helping constituents to raising campaign funds to political travels, the work is demanding and requires both physical strength and mental resilience.  No matter who you are, you lose some of that over time.

The two leading candidates for president raise legitimate concerns about aging and its effect in their possible next term.  Neither seems worried, having the outsized egos required of presidential candidates and the misplaced belief that they won’t decline further in the next few years, let alone die.  Both are in denial about all they have so obviously lost.

For people who would lead a great power like the U.S. in facing incredible challenges, their self-delusion is impressive. Still, no voter should accept the assurances of geriatric candidates, when such assurances fly in the face of the obvious deterioration common among our age group.

Sometimes, seniors in government can be both worrisome and dangerous.  California Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein, 89, has a solid legislative record.  Her term runs through 2024, but she recently spent months ill at home and not at the Senate.  Her absence affected the urgent consideration of judicial appointments.  Yet she still clings to office.

Her actions recall Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Though an historic member of the Court, she remained on the bench as her health failed when she could have given President Obama the opportunity of replacing her with a jurist sharing her philosophy.  Instead, she held on until her death, allowing President Trump to name a conservative successor.

As these cases show, geriatric control of the levers of government extends far beyond the presidency.  Senior Senate leaders are aging.  Maine Sen. Angus King, 79 and seventh oldest senator, is thinking about a third six-year term.  Sen. Susan Collins, 70 and 34^th oldest, is in her fifth Senate term.

The choice of running mates has become more critical for the two leading presidential candidates as their ages raise the risk they might not live out their terms.  

In 1944, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt looked unlikely to last four more years, Democratic leaders picked Harry Truman, not one of FDR’s favorites, as his running mate.  Biden and Trump will handpick the vice presidential backups for their parties and the country.  They’re not likely to let the parties’ convention delegates choose rather than acting as though they are immortal.

But there is another concern about leaving control to the oldest generation.  The pace of social and political change in the U.S. speeds up.  Listen to popular music.  Compare the ballads and rock of Biden’s youth with today’s hard-edged rap.  Or look at currently acceptable language or concepts of morality.  Old politicians are probably out of touch with much cultural change.

Politicians often talk about trying to improve life for the coming generations of children and grandchildren.  They may fail to recognize that these generations are now adults.  They are not only capable of making decisions for their futures, but they really should take on that responsibility. 

Obviously, experience matters, but it can also hamper imagination and experimentation.  Younger people with new ideas should have greater influence on their country and their futures.  While politicians exert much energy on current battles, that short-term focus draws attention away from looking long-term at future needs and desires.

Senior control is undemocratic.  Only about 16.5 percent of Americans are 65 and older. About half the Senate is at least 65.  Biden and Trump top that age by far.  The country is more gerontocracy than democracy. 

Voters won’t make the adjustment themselves.  Candidates need to regard office as a public trust, exercised for a limited period, not as a job to be held until death or senility.  A little modesty would help.  Term limits make sense to discourage senility in office, if for no other reason.  People can keep contributing to their country without holding public office.

For the moment, the age question comes down to Biden and Trump.  Each is almost certainly too old to assure us they could satisfactorily serve another term.  The lack of alternatives is one more sign the political system is broken.

They could walk away from the campaign, which might well enhance their place in history.  Or they could be challenged by primary candidates whose key issue is the need to limit the age of our leaders.   Or they could throw the choice of their running mates, each a potential president, to the primaries or the national conventions. 

As an old guy, I’d bet on one thing.  Based on our experience, a great many of us in the Biden-Trump age group think that neither of them should run.

Please consider subscribing on Substack.  Free, direct to your mailbox.  Go to Substack and enter Gordon Weil. Thanks.

Debt ceiling crisis is political theater

 

Gordon L. Weil

America, hope you enjoyed the political theater.

Because that’s what all the anguish over the debt ceiling amounted to.  In the real world, relatively little has happened.

Congress had voted for public spending, but the outlays could only be covered by new borrowing, because tax revenues wouldn’t be sufficient.  That would boost the national debt.  But there is also a ceiling on public debt that Congress mostly ignored.

Then, last November, the Republicans won a slim majority in the House of Representatives.  The GOP right-wing hoped to use the debt ceiling as a way of reversing spending they had opposed and even some they had supported.

The GOP would take control of the House in January.  Before then, President Biden and the lame-duck Democrats could have put through a bill increasing the ceiling.  He might have been forced to make some concessions to conservative Democrats, but that would have been easier than dealing later with the Republican House majority.  He did not take the opportunity.

Or he could have ignored the debt ceiling on the grounds that it is banned by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.  But Biden was worried that the matter would end up being resolved by the courts.  Then, the House GOP passed their own budget-slashing version of a debt limit bill, and forced him to negotiate.

Failure to raise the debt limit supposedly meant that the federal government would not have enough money from taxes for its debt payments.  It would default, the pundits warned.  Interest rates would rise, their effect rippling through the economy.  Government spending cutbacks would kill growth.  Jobs would be lost and the stock market would fall sharply.

Possibly the greatest harm would be to the role of the American dollar, the reserve currency widely used to finance world trade and investment.  As other counties lost confidence in it, U.S. influence would decline.

The Treasury Department said federal income would no longer cover all the bills on June 5.    Panic, hyped by the media, gradually appeared.  Default loomed.

Only it didn’t.  The Treasury receives enough tax money to pay debt service, though some government spending would have to be cut or even halted.  Social Security and Medicare have sufficient reserves to cover many more months of outlays.

Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy engaged in desperate negotiations to avoid default.  Each tried to attach blame for a possible default on the other.  That was the essence of the negotiations.  If there were a deal, each would need to declare victory.

They reached a deal to send to Congress, so both must have won.  McCarthy got mostly symbolic caps and reductions from slightly lowering planned spending over the next two years, and Biden saved his major initiatives.  Sensibly, unspent Covid relief dollars were recovered.  The debt ceiling was lifted until after the 2024 elections. 

Here’s an example of why not much happened.  Biden and the Democratic Congress had passed $80 billion for the IRS over an eight-year period to collect unpaid taxes from the wealthiest taxpayers.  The GOP falsely claimed that taxes would be raised on average people. 

The two-year debt ceiling deal appears to cut this amount by $10 billion.  The IRS has its plans in place.  If necessary, it can shift money forward from future years and keep pursuing improved collection limited to people with incomes over $400,000.  Nothing in the deal prevents Congress from restoring the full spending three or more years from now.

As for the dollar’s world role, it’s already waning and with it American prestige.  “America First” policies, previous debt ceiling crises and the rise of China’s yuan have been reducing U.S. economic power.

Strong House GOP conservatives and many progressive Democrats dislike the deal.  The conservatives think McCarthy got too little and oppose it, knowing that passage does not need their votes. The progressives think Biden should have made no concessions.  Few want responsibility for a default.  In the end, both sides will enjoy the illusion of a political victory.

Can this situation be avoided in the future?  The House once had a rule that whenever it passed a bill requiring debt to pay the cost, the debt ceiling would be automatically increased.  The losers would not get a second bite of the apple through a later battle over the debt ceiling.  That rule should be revived.

Congress should never spend money without deciding where it will come from. That principle is rarely observed, because it’s a lot easier simply to spend, while shielding voters from the cost.

Not all future spending has to come from driving the country deeper into debt, making new debt ceiling clashes and default a real possibility.  When Congress increases spending, from adding military hardware to boosting renewable energy, it should exercise greater leadership and cover the costs by combining debt increases with tax increases. 

Otherwise, it’s political theater.

‘No Labels’ party could be conservative plot

Gordon L. Weil

Voters seem to be worried about the leading presidential candidates.

They worry about how far Donald Trump would go in departing from political norms. They worry simply about how far Joe Biden would go.

Because both the former president and his successor appear highly likely to be the major party nominees, the election might not do much to close the nearly even political divide.

Along comes the “No Labels” party, its name designed to show that it is not affiliated with either the Democrats or the Republicans.  It may propose an “independent” candidate, who could appeal to “the center” that is ignored by the two major parties.

No Labels should be a nonstarter.  It is both misleading and misguided.

It relies on polling to show both the lack of enthusiasm for Biden and Trump and the presence of a large number of moderates who might prefer a middle-of-the-road candidate.  To build a third party relying on polls may be a mistake.  Many people refuse to participate, and it’s possible that those who reply do not provide complete or wholly honest answers.

The word “moderate” itself may not mean neutral between the parties as much as “pragmatic” in wanting government to work, through compromise if necessary.  But what would be an acceptable compromise?

Maine Democratic Rep. Jared Golden tried.  He proposed a compromise to the debt ceiling deadlock.  It was hailed in the Washington Post.  It was completely ignored even by so-called moderates in Congress.  The partisan war continued.

The No Labels group takes credit for helping create the bi-partisan House “problem solvers” caucus, supposedly bringing together moderates from both parties. But, does it work?  It has been silent on the debt ceiling, except for Golden, a member.

Third party presidential candidates, no matter how well intentioned, may serve as “spoilers,” potentially depriving a major party of enough votes to tip the election to the other side.  It’s impossible to know how the third-party backers might otherwise have voted, so spoiler status is a possibility not a certainty.

Yet it may have happened when Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in 1992. Independent Ross Perot could have taken GOP votes away from Bush.  Maybe Ralph Nader caused Al Gore’s loss to the younger Bush in 2000.

The presumed answer is that No Labels will put together a president-vice president ticket with a representative of each party.  That would be meant to deal with the spoiler issue.  But the presidential nominee would be the only candidate that mattered.

Who is backing No Labels?  Knowing that would tell us a lot about the kinds of “moderate” policies it would support.  For example, how would it balance Medicaid spending with tax cuts? People with enough money to fund No Labels are likely to have strong opinions on such a choice.

The organization is using a tax law that allows it to keep its donors secret until it becomes a political party.  At the same time, it is trying to qualify as a party.  Maine’s Secretary of State questioned if it was trying to mislead people.  Voters are asked to give it a political blank check.

Here’s a way to test its politically neutral intentions, taking it at its word that it backs moderates.

It should support a moderate challenger in the presidential primaries in each party.  The appeal of both Biden and Trump would be tested.  If both of its preferred candidates won, its work would be done.  If only one of them was victorious, No Labels should throw all of its support to that candidate.  If both lost, it would have been proved wrong.

If No Labels participated in this way, it could still keep its financial backers secret.  But that secret would discredit a group trying to promote good government. 

To counter the sizeable, hard-core support for Trump, No Labels looks like a crypto plot by traditional GOP business backers to produce a conservative ticket without Trump. The first step would be to nominate a traditional GOP conservative or a right-leaning Democrat. 

The second step would be to peel away Democrats who think Biden has caved in to the progressives.  If No Labels ran a renegade Democrat, it could re-elect Trump.

The weakness of this ploy is the reluctance among all but a few Republicans to take on Trump. They still worry about the ability of his troops to unseat them.  Just look at the silent Republican “problem solvers.”

At the same time, they ignore the new-found unity of the Democrats.  Across the spectrum, they like Biden, even if some grumble.  Almost all accept him as their leader and understand they must remain unified to have a realistic chance of governing.

In the end, the presidential election could well be all about Trump, and No Labels can do little about that. 

Trump remains faithful to the 'Big Lie' strategy

Gordon L. Weil

Because Adolf Hitler operated so far below civilized bounds, it may seem unfair to say anybody else is like him. But some people continue to use his strategies.

In Germany, when Hitler came to power after his Nazi Party won a minority election victory in 1933, some believed he would fade at the next elections.  They did not imagine that he would acquire dictatorial power to ensure there would be no more elections, but he did.

Hitler is considered as the inventor of the Big Lie. It amounts to stating an untruth so enormous that people accept it because they think nobody would assert anything so completely unbelievable unless it were true.  Strange as that seems, it works.

Former President Donald Trump uses the Big Lie. Most of his public speaking consists of a flow of outright falsehoods with a sprinkling of half-truths.

The American political system, with a right of free speech that is the standard of the world, willingly tolerates anybody saying just about anything.  That’s both amazing and good. But it invites abuse and sometimes that abuse might threaten the very system that allows it.

While the situation is far less dire in this country than it was in Nazi Germany, the U.S. faces a political leader who willingly exploits the rights from which he benefits to undermine and potentially destroy them.  Because many people believe that the system is stronger than he is and can protect itself from extreme threats, they accept his extravagant abuse of it.

The time has come to accept that such an act of faith is no longer justified.  It is time to confront this threat, not by adopting the same tactics, but by fighting the abuse.  It’s time to stop treating Trump as either a truth-teller who must be cheered or as a destroyer who must be bitterly tolerated.  He deserves to be treated as a danger to the U.S.

Some Trump supporters agree with his distrust of government, his claims about widespread election fraud in 2020 and his warnings about the impending doom facing the country if the Democrats control the government.   

His opponents deplore his increasing the federal debt by a tax cut for the wealthy, his attempt to bribe a foreign leader, his false election claims and provoking the Capitol insurrection, and his cruel policy of splitting immigrant families.

Policy conflicts are a normal part of democracy.  Out of these differences may come sound policy.  But using the system that brought you to power to undermine it, even to the point of persistently promoting dangerous falsehoods, is divisive and destructive. Yet that’s what he does, apparently believing that is what enough people want to give him an election win.

Recently, Trump appeared on a televised town hall meeting with New Hampshire voters, produced by CNN.  The cable channel allowed an audience composed almost entirely of his supporters.  He consistently denied or distorted the truth throughout it.

CNN has been sharply criticized for providing Trump a platform for continuing to make false claims about the 2020 election and other events.  The channel defends itself by saying that as a responsible news organization it should provide a forum for a former president who is again seeking the office. It has no legal requirement to do so.

Media leaders argue that the press should report independently and as objectively as possible, leaving it to the people to reach their own conclusions. They are right in emphasizing the value of a news organization in a free society; it should provide access to all political views.

But there comes a time to recognize that by providing a platform to a person who seriously threatens that free society, a media outlet can be dangerously naïve. The Big Lie is not entitled to big coverage.

The Washington Post hosts the best journalistic fact checker, and it refuted Trump’s “fire hose” of false claims on the CNN show.  But it is impossible to keep up with his flow of falsehoods while he is speaking.  When the moderator tried, he talked over her and assigned to her his favorite anti-woman label, calling her “nasty.”

The media should stop treating Trump as if he is entitled to a level playing field and must continually demonstrate its innocence of his charges that it broadcasts “fake news.”  He has forfeited such consideration, and for the media, it verges on being suicidal.

In the same vein, the Democrats, while avoiding his destructive tactics, must be willing to confront him and to counter him as vigorously as he attacks them.  Simply believing you are better at governing and that moderates will someday recognize your merit is not enough.

The media and the Dems appear to worry about offending Trump’s supporters.  If they don’t oppose the Big Lie, they aid its promoter. 

Congress should order Supreme Court to adopt ethics code

 

Gordon L. Weil

As a newspaper correspondent, I was once offered a free trip to write an article about an event at a distant location.  The sponsors would pay for my travel and lodging. While I was confident I’d write an objective piece, it’s likely they expected a favorable report.

I asked my editor if I could accept the offer and produce an article for the paper.  He promptly told me to turn it down, because I could not report on an event for which the sponsor had paid my expenses.  I declined the invitation. 

I could have refrained from asking for approval and kept the editor in the dark.  I could have given him the impression that I had paid for my own travel expenses, perhaps while on vacation.  The paper could have allowed me to go.  In no case would the readers have known.  The reason none of that happened was a matter of ethics.

The paper observes journalistic ethics and expected the same of me.  It is not a government agency and its policies are not governed by law.  But the editors want to preserve public confidence in its fairness and independence.  They know that the newspaper has to keep the public’s trust and avoid endangering it in any way.

We are faced today with the same kind of problem with the U.S. Supreme Court. An unelected government body, it makes decisions that can affect everybody in the country.  Yet it lacks any known ethical code.  If it has an undisclosed code, enforcement or lack of it is left to the Court itself.

While Congress, the executive branch and all federal courts must meet ethical standards, the Supreme Court has no such requirement.  In light of recent disclosures and a long-running effort by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Congress has begun to question whether there should be publicly announced Supreme Court standards.

The discussion has almost instantly become partisan, because issues have arisen concerning conservative justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who received large, undisclosed gifts, Chief Justice John Roberts and possibly others.  Some Republican senators are reluctant to require a Court code, while Democrats seek some reform.

The situation reflects partisanship.  Republican legislators may not want to question the ethics of justices whose decisions they like.  Democrats may like challenging hostile justices.  This focus is revealed in the low headlight beams of short-term party politics without turning on the high beams to see what would be good for the American political system. 

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Judiciary Committee chair, invited Roberts to discuss the Court’s substituting a mere declaration for a real ethics code.  Roberts declined, based on concern about protecting judicial independence.  He seemed to assert that it could not be held accountable by Congress.  Checks and balances appear not to apply to the Court.

His attitude is consistent with the increasingly dominant role of the Court in the federal government.  He resists the kind of congressional role contemplated by the Constitution and takes extreme advantage of the respectful reluctance of the Senate to avoid meddling in Court decisions.

Senators Angus King (I-ME), who aligns with the Democrats, and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) jointly proposed legislation that would require the Court to adopt a public ethics code within a year.  Congress would not set the code for the Court.

The Court would be required to appoint an independent official to investigate complaints and to issue an annual report.  The Court would also be authorized to investigate ethical questions, a power that it probably believes it already has.

The investigator could become a magnet for complaints and an annual report might allow ethics violations to linger too long.  And what would happen with the report once issued?

This good bipartisan effort could easily be improved without affecting the Court’s judicial powers.  The Chief Justice could appoint a panel of federal judges to review complaints and make public its findings only if it uncovered possible violations.  A similar confidential court to deal with national security issues already exists. Its members are appointed for fixed terms.

If this panel found an ethics violation, it would report to Congress. The House could then decide whether to impeach the justice.  Federal judges (including one early Supreme Court justice) have been impeached and some have resigned before impeachment.  Finally, the Senate may convict or acquit.

Checks and balances work because judges, members of Congress or presidents may be charged by the House and convicted by the Senate only after a trial.  But the Supreme Court has chosen to be its own judge and has never in the 234 years of its existence disclosed a major violation of any confidential code of judicial ethics.

Roberts should not overly insulate the Court, one of the three equal branches of government, and let checks and balances work.