Lindsey Graham slams the brakes on Democratic Supreme Court ethics legislation

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) plans to block Democratic legislation to institute ethics reforms at the Supreme Court, vowing he "will object."

According to NBC News, "The South Carolina senator's comments come after Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said earlier on Tuesday that he would make a unanimous consent request to pass Supreme Court ethics legislation that the panel advanced last July. The South Carolina Republican's objection means the bill will not be able to move forward because any senator can block a request."

Legislation blocked in such a way cannot advance without 60 votes to move for cloture on a filibuster, which would require nine Republicans to join all Democrats.

"It isn't clear if the measure will come up for a vote under the normal process, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he’s considering it," the report continued. "Even before Graham's comments, Democrats doubted the legislation would advance. 'I think I know the outcome, but we’re going to go through the exercise to make sure that both parties are in the record,' Durbin told reporters on Tuesday afternoon."

ALSO READ: Justice delayed is not always justice denied

A series of stories reporting on serious ethical questions at the Supreme Court have driven outrage among legal experts and Democratic lawmakers. Questions have swirled around Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito's lavish acceptance of gifts and vacations from right-wing billionaires with business interests before the court, and more recently about reports on the display of MAGA and Christian nationalist symbols on Alito's property at the time he was unsuccessfully urging the court to take up a challenge to Pennsylvania's certification of former President Donald Trump's 2020 election loss.

In response to some criticism, the Supreme Court adopted a new code of ethics at the end of last year. The code has been criticized as inadequate, as it still requires the justices to police their own behavior and make the final decision on when to recuse over conflicts of interest.