Federal Democratic legislators from New York talk Supreme Court strategy

Democrats, political watchdogs, and leftists of all stripes registered dismay with the Supreme Court decision to grant criminal immunity to presidents.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (NEXSTAR) — Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York, proposed two pieces of legislation that would reform the Supreme Court. On Thursday, she said that serious federal misconduct from unaccountable Justices undermines public trust.

"The judiciary has the least oversight of all three branches of government," Gillibrand said in the announcement streamed online. "It's no surprise when they fail to hold themselves or each other to the highest ethical standards. Imagine what kind of example that sets for the people of New York?"

First, she outlined her Supreme Court Ethics and Recusal Transparency Act. They include:

• Standard procedures for fielding and resolving misconduct complaints
• Transparency around gifts and conflicts of interest
• An improved recusal process
• More thorough financial disclosures involving lobbyists and special interest groups

"This legislation makes sure that no one—even Supreme Court Justices—are above the law," Gillibrand said. She also described the points of her Supreme Court Biennial Appointments and Term Limits Act, featuring:

• 18-year term limits
• Regular appointments every 2 years

This in apparent response to a July 1 ruling from the country's top court—that presidents enjoy criminal immunity when performing official acts—seeming to represent an obvious win for conservatives backing former Pres. Donald Trump. Congressmember Elise Stefanik, a New York representative among Republican leadership, said in a written statement:

"Today’s Supreme Court decision is a historic victory for President Donald Trump, the Constitution, the rule of law, and the American people. The President of the United States must have immunity, like Members of Congress and federal judges, which is necessary for any presidency to function properly. I look forward to continuing to work with President Trump to ensure his victory and Save America.”

Democrats, political watchdogs, and leftists of all stripes registered their dismay with the decision, however. "In one fell swoop, this court has essentially left the American people to the whims of the President of the United States," Donald Sherman, who represents the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), told Democracy Now.

And back in Congress, two New York Democrats laid out different strategies in response. On Wednesday, Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced articles of impeachment against Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. Both had come under fire long before the immunity ruling.

The articles for Thomas: two counts of refusal to recuse from matters concerning his spouse's legal and financial interests before the court; and one count of failure to disclose financial income, gifts, reimbursements, property interest liabilities, and transactions, among other information. The articles for Alito were the same, though with only one count of refusing to recuse.

Take a look at the C-SPAN video below:

On the day of the ruling, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: "The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control. Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture."

Meanwhile, Rochester-area Congressmember Joseph Morelle proposed an amendment to the Constitution that specifically articulates that presidents lack immunity. "My constitutional amendment will reverse the Supreme Court's disastrous decision which undermines the very foundation of our sacred democracy," he said on social media on July 7.

"Both Alito and Thomas have clearly—I think, if they've broken laws, if they've certainly had conflicts of interest, those are factual issues that really would need to be assessed, and you could assess that in an impeachment process," Gillibrand said about Ocasio-Cortez's move during the question-and-answer portion of her livestream. "It certainly raises grave concerns for me that they are not objective and that they are not impartial and cannot actually be effective Supreme Court Justices."

New York's other senator in Washington, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, talked about yet another tactic on the Senate floor. "I will work with my colleagues on legislation classifying Trump’s election subversion acts as unofficial acts not subject to immunity,” he said on July 8.

With Trump's felony conviction having taken place in New York City, some political supporters from other states worked to triangulate against the Empire State. In late June, before the immunity ruling, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced plans to sue New York State.

He filed suit on July 3, arguing that a gag order against the former president limits Missourians from family participating in the federal election. And on July 10, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird joined Bailey, filing an amicus brief in the matter. You can read the initial complaint in Missouri v. NY, filed with the Supreme Court and linked at the bottom of this story.

Modern watchdogs have questioned an increasingly politicized SCOTUS since at least the Bush era when politicians cited concerns about appointing "activist judges." Democrats labeled Bush nominee and current Chief Justice John Roberts as such in 2005, for example, while Republicans levied the charge against current Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor when Obama nominated her in 2009.

Roberts became Chief Justice in September 2005. During his confirmation hearings for the position, he testified under oath: "I believe that no one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law, the constitution, and statutes." He wrote the July 1 immunity decision.

And, "I don't think the president is above the law," Alito said during his confirmation hearings in 2006. "No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law."

"No one's above the law in the United States. That's a foundational principle that I've talked about coming from Federalist 69 coming from right the structure of the constitution. we're all equal before the law in the United States of America," came the response from Brett Kavanaugh during his 2018 confirmation hearings, which included testimony accusing him of sexual abuse. "The foundation of our constitution was that—as Hamilton explained in Federalist 69—the presidency would not be a monarchy. And it specified all of the ways in the Constitution that the president is not above the law."

In 2016, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, refused to entertain confirmation hearings for Obama nominee Merrick Garland. Although McConnell argued that the March nomination came too late in the president's term, he authorized hearings for Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. Her nomination came that September.

While the immunity ruling followed party lines, the Associated Judges from the Democratic side have not been free from ethical criticism. Staff for Sotomayor, according to the Associated Press, sold books to universities, possibly as a condition of her agreeing to speak at their campuses.

In the 69th volume of the Federalist Paper, Founding Father Alexander Hamilton wrote in part:

"The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware."

Take a look at the Missouri v. NY legal filing: