Trump attacks Watergate laws in massive shift of ethics system; The Washington Post, June 21, 2025

Naftali Bendavid, The Washington Post; Trump attacks Watergate laws in massive shift of ethics system

"Then-Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman was 32 when, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, she voted in 1974 for three articles of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon. She spent the next few years as part of a Congress that passed wave after wave of laws to rein in future presidents.

A half-century later, Holtzman, a New York Democrat, is watching as President Donald Trump takes aim at post-Watergate reforms on transparency, spending, conflicts of interest and more. By challenging and disregarding, in letter or in spirit, this slew of 1970s laws, Trump is essentially closing the 50-year post-Watergate chapter of American history — and ushering in a new era of shaky guardrails and blurred separation of powers.

“We didn’t envision this,” Holtzman said. “We saw Nixon doing it, but he hadn’t done it on this vast a scale. Trump is saying, ‘Congress cannot tell me what to do about anything.’”...

This broad rejection of the post-Watergate laws underlines the country’s shift from an era focused on clean government and strict ethics to the rise of a president whose appeal stems in part from his willingness to violate such rules and constraints.

“There has been a collapse, at least temporarily, of the kind of outrage and ethical standards that were prevalent during the days of Watergate,” said Richard Ben-Veniste, who headed the special counsel’s Watergate Task Force."

Donald Trump’s Library of Congress fight is really about the separation of powers; AP, May 16, 2025

SEUNG MIN KIM, Associated Press (AP); Donald Trump’s Library of Congress fight is really about the separation of powers

"It’s not really about the books.

President Donald Trump’s abrupt firing of top officials at the Library of Congress and equally sudden attempt to appoint a slate of loyalists as replacements has instead morphed into an enormous fight over the separation of powers, as the White House tries to wrest control of what has for centuries been a legislative institution.

It’s a power struggle with potentially vast consequences. The Library of Congress not only stores the world’s largest collection of books but also an office overseeing reams of copyrighted material of untold value. 

There is a research institute that has long been protected from outside influence. Its servers house extremely sensitive information regarding claims of workplace violations on Capitol Hill, as well as payments and other financial data for the legislative branch’s more than 30,000 employees. There’s even speculation that the whole affair is tied to an ongoing debate over whether big tech companies can use copyrighted material for artificial intelligence systems."

Israelis’ defiance of Netanyahu holds a lesson for anyone who cares about democracy; The Guardian, July 28, 2023

 Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian; Israelis’ defiance of Netanyahu holds a lesson for anyone who cares about democracy

"That prompts a troubling question for all those engaged in the fight against nationalist populism, wherever they are. If all the strength and numbers Israel’s pro-democracy movement has mustered are not enough, what exactly will it take? Can it really be that a nation is powerless to stop a leader bent on destroying his country to save himself? That thought is almost too bleak to contemplate. Which is why everyone who cares about democracy, including those who are distant from Israel, should desperately want those protesters to succeed. We need them to win."

No, Justice Alito. Congress should not butt out on Supreme Court ethics.; The Washington Post, July 30, 2023

Ruth Marcus , The Washington Post; No, Justice Alito. Congress should not butt out on Supreme Court ethics.

"Since 1948, Congress has required federal judges — including Supreme Court justices — to recuse themselves from deciding cases in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Is that unconstitutional? Since 1978, it has required federal judges — including justices — to file financial disclosure forms. Is that unconstitutional? (The justices, including Alito, say they voluntarilyfollow those rules.) Since 1989, it has imposed strict limits on outside income and gifts for federal judges — including justices. Is that unconstitutional? Just last year, Congress amended the ethics rules to mandate that federal judges — including justices — promptly disclose their stock transactions. Is that unconstitutional?

Why would it be? The Alito argument, such as it is, proves too much. It would mean that Congress could not make it a crime for justices to accept bribes. And why would Congress have power to impose ethics rules on the executive branch but not on the judiciary — or are those unconstitutional, too?

We don’t want Congress punishing the court for issuing decisions with which lawmakers disagree. Respect for the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary counsels caution in this area. But it does not dictate hands off, no matter what Alito might wish."

Justices Would Get Ethics Code Under New Democrat Bill; The National Law Journal, Janaury 7, 2019

Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle, The National Law Journal; 

Justices Would Get Ethics Code Under New Democrat Bill

The bill is the latest of repeated efforts by Congress to impose an ethics code on the Supreme Court, which is exempt from the code first promulgated in 1973 by the Judicial Conference.

 

"The first bill introduced by the Democratic-led House of Representatives last week contains a provision that would include U.S. Supreme Court justices for the first time in a newly created code of conduct.

If passed, the provision could raise separation-of-powers issues and would likely irritate the high court, which covets its independence and its special status under the Constitution. The provision could also revive the controversy over ethics complaints against Justice Brett Kavanaugh that were dismissed last month because he is now on the Supreme Court, outside the purview of existing judicial ethics rules.

H.R. 1, dubbed the “For the People Act,” is a wide-ranging bill that covers issues of transparency, corruption, ethics and campaign finance reform."

RBG Just Risked Her Legacy to Insult Trump; Slate, 7/12/16

Mark Joseph Stern, Slate; RBG Just Risked Her Legacy to Insult Trump:

"To be clear, what Ginsburg is doing right now—pushing her case against Trump through on-the-record interviews—is not just unethical; it’s dangerous. As a general rule, justices should refrain from commenting on politics, period. That dictate applies to 83-year-old internet folk heroes as strictly as it applies to anybody else who dons judicial robes. The independence of our judiciary—and just as critically, its appearance of impartiality—hinges on a consistent separation between itself and the other branches of government. That means no proclamations of loyalty to any candidate, or admissions of distaste of any other."

Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say; New York Times, 6/3/16

[Video and Article] Adam Liptak, New York Times; Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say:

"Donald J. Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law, legal experts across the political spectrum say."