Sen. Whitehouse Threatens Supreme Court Probe if Dems Take Senate
“He and I are already working together. We are already meeting monthly to plan. Republicans can block my subpoenas in the Senate with a filibuster.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has November already mapped out. Win the Senate, take over the Judiciary, then use both Judiciary committees to go after the Supreme Court.
🚨 Sheldon Whitehouse says that if Dems win the Senate and he becomes Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he will immediately launch an endless series of witch hunts against the Supreme Court's conservative justices:
"We are going to turn a lot of attention right away on the… pic.twitter.com/4QWG6rqTPB
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 30, 2026
“He and I are already working together. We are already meeting monthly to plan. Republicans can block my subpoenas in the Senate with a filibuster. They cannot block a Jamie Raskin House subpoena. So if we’re working together, we can do twice the work, and we’re going to put a lot of attention right away into the Supreme Court.”
That is not just a hypothetical. Whitehouse and Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD-8) are the top Democrats on their respective Judiciary committees and are already meeting monthly, building what amounts to a coordinated two-chamber investigative operation with the Court as the target. The structure is in place. Win or lose in November, they are not waiting.
“We need to do a lot of investigating because not enough people know the story about how this court got captured by a bunch of creepy right-wing billionaires.”
He had a specific question about Justice Clarence Thomas: “Did Clarence Thomas ever pay his taxes on the quarter-million-dollar loan forgiveness for his motor coach?” It is the kind of question Whitehouse has been raising for years, without any proof. He is betting that if Democrats win, he will finally have the tools to demand an answer.
That’s not all. He also wants a “proper ethics program” with real fact-finding powers, not a toothless self-policing arrangement, and “retroactive term limits” for the justices already on the bench. The term-limits part is where it gets complicated. Article III gives federal judges life tenure during “good Behaviour.” Whitehouse did not get into that problem in Iowa.
Whitehouse was in Iowa to campaign for Josh Turek, the Democratic nominee running against Rep. Ashley Hinson for the state’s open Senate seat. Iowa is competitive. Turek’s race is the seat Whitehouse needs to get to 51.
They are already meeting and coordinating. If November goes their way, Whitehouse says the Supreme Court is not just on the list but first.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It’s a shame that Chief Justice Roberts hasn’t retired. He’s been a disappointment, to say the least.
President Peter Moss would nominate Ted Cruz to take his place.
Good luck out-debating a Chief Justice Cruz, Senator Blowhard.
Prediction: the Democrats will not do anywhere near as well as they hope or expect in the midterms.
NEVER underestimate the democrat ballot fraud machine, my friend.
Maybe he can find out which justice helped leak the abortion decision.
It’s likely he already knows. First hand.
You’d think that someone as dedicated to liberal virtue signaling as is Whitehouse, that he’d avoid beach clubs that discriminate.
He said in an interview he was just trying to save black lives because everybody knows they have dense bones and can’t swim to save their lives.
His beach club doesn’t discriminate.
I’m sure you are right. If they’ll take in Sheldon White House, they’ll take anybody.
De facto or de jure?
There’s not a shred of evidence, or even any allegation, that the club has ever rejected anyone on the basis of race. Any suggestion that it has done so is pure scurrilous speculation, just like Whitehouse’s speculations about Thomas.
Not so, my houseboy was rejected, and he applied wearing his best bling.
Say what you will. I see lots of dancing around the point. The PEOPLE article from 2021:
“In a statement to PEOPLE, a spokesperson for the lawmaker says the Bailey’s Beach Club, where Whitehouse was a member, has no rules prohibiting diversity at its club.
“The club has no racially discriminatory policy. The club confirmed for the senator that it has had and has members of color,” Whitehouse’s spokesperson said. (They did not provide further documentation confirming this.)
PEOPLE’s efforts to reach the club management by phone were unsuccessful on Tuesday.
The club, also known as the Spouting Rock Beach Association, was described by The New York Times in 2003 as “the queen of American resorts” even as the paper noted at the time that one member said of admittance: “Jewish, yes … Blacks, not really.”
The website GoLocal24 first reported on the 65-year-old Democrat’s membership at Bailey’s Beach Club in 2017.
The site described the club at the time as “all-white” and further reported that Whitehouse had promised to leave upon joining the Senate in 2006 – which his office disputes.
According to GoLocal24, the senator instead consolidated his membership at both Bailey’s and the “all-male, all-white Bellevue Avenue Reading Room” with his wife, Sandra.
Whitehouse’s spokesperson confirmed to PEOPLE that he is no longer a member of the club and transferred his shares to his wife in accordance with club policy.
“The Senator recalls transferring his shares to accommodate a club policy of spouses not both being members,” the spokesperson says.
Asked about the club’s membership in 2017, Whitehouse told GoLocal24: “I think it would be nice if they changed a little bit, but it’s not my position.” He said he would take up a push for diversity “privately.”
In a brief interview with the site last week, he was asked about the club and diversity and said, “I think the people who are running the place are still working on that and I’m sorry it hasn’t happened yet.”
When pressed on whether or not such a club should “continue to exist” in 2021, Whitehouse responded that places like Bailey’s – of which he said there were “many” – are a “long tradition in Rhode Island.”
By Monday, his position had seemingly shifted, with Whitehouse pushing back on GoLocal24 and telling reporters on Capitol Hill, “I think they got the facts wrong” when asked about issues around the diversity of members.
Asked to be more specific, he said, “I believed that there were – I don’t spend a lot of time there; I couldn’t tell you who the members are.”
A 2019 story by GoLocal24 reported that the Whitehouses were some of the largest shareholders at the club, with membership stretching back generations on both sides of the couple’s family.
Historically, some of America’s wealthiest families have held memberships at the club, including the Vanderbilts and Astors.
In a statement to GoLocal24, Gary Dantzler, the executive director of Black Lives Matter Rhode Island, criticized Whitehouse’s association with the club given his past statements about racism.
The senator “coming out and speaking about ending systemic racism while belonging to a ‘whites only’ private club is hypocrisy as it worst,” Dantzler said.
Yes, this article insinuates and dances around but never actually makes the accusation, because the publisher knew it was not well-founded and likely not true.
The entire article is a disgusting piece of character-assassination that we would have us totally up in arms if it were about a Republican. If someone gives it a pass merely because it’s about a Democrat, and a particularly odious Democrat, that means that person decides their positions based on whose ox is gored, which is the most disgusting and evil trait, and automatically makes everything they say disgusting and evil.
If we stand for conservative values, we must believe that the mere fact that a club happens at any given moment not to have any black members means nothing at all about it. That’s especially the case when it’s a club for rich New England yacht-owners. How many rich black yacht-owners are there in New England, and how many of those would have any interest in joining a club full of rich New England yacht-owners?
My synagogue has had years-long stretches when our membership has been “all-white”. Right now that’s not the case, but there’s no reason to suppose we won’t have similar stretches in the future. That’s simply because the overwhelming majority of observant Jews in this neighborhood in Brooklyn happen to be “white”. There’s nothing racist about it. So why would the yacht club be different? Why should it be treated differently just because we don’t like one of its members?
This article also seems to rely heavily on GoLocal24, which is a site with an agenda, and is known for making allegations that aren’t necessarily backed up by evidence.
Whitehouse is the one that needs an investigation.
If two-thirds of the senate ever votes to remove a judge for his views or his rulings rather than for his conduct, we may well see the supreme court overturning the removal as unconstitutional.
Any attempt to impose term limits without an amendment will certainly be overturned. Including attempts to move justices to “senior status” and take cases away from them.
If Democrats remove a member of SCOTUS on the basis that views or rulings constitute misdemeanor, which is grounds for impeachment, could SCOTUS rule it unconstitutional?
Even if SCOTUS rejected the action, can SCOTUS unilaterally rule on an issue not before the court?
Yes, it could and I think would rule it unconstitutional.
And it would be before the court. Either the ousted justice would sue to regain his seat, or more likely the Chief Justice would ignore the vote and instruct the justice to continue sitting, and the next time the court sat someone would sue to have this stranger removed. Either way, it would be a live case. SCOTUS couldn’t rule during the congressional proceedings, because at that point there would not yet be a case.
This is why I appreciate you, Milhouse.
I do not think so. I think the impeachment power is absolute. No senator is required to disclose the basis for his/her vote. I don’t think invidious motive is discoverable or disqualifying of a vote. In the end, it’s the only way the people’s elected voice can be heard on an impeachment saying ‘we just don’t want this guy or gal in office any more.’
The constitution explicitly says that judges hold their office “during good behavior”. So unless bad behavior is alleged and established, Congress lacks the power to remove a judge.
I’d argue (the very much minority position) that there’s two separate paths to remove a member of the Judiciary:
1. Normal impeachment in HoR followed by ‘trial’ in Senate to remove requiring 2/3 vote
2. Removal for ‘non good behavior’ during tenure which would be by majority vote and a political question
I am well aware that this is a minority position.
I doubt you could get 2/3 of Congress to agree that the sky gets dark at night.
“He also wants a “proper ethics program” with real fact-finding powers, not a toothless self-policing arrangement…”
This will be problematic too. He seems to be suggesting that Congress can create enforceable oversight of the courts (without amending the Constitution?) and that it can impose a code of ethics. These proposals seem to violate the concept of “separation of powers.” (Easy test. Would the opposite work? That is, could SCOTUS of the POTUS impose a code of ethics on Congress? After all, why should Congress be able to make its own ethics rules?)
And who would decide whether or not such acts are constitutional? Exactly. Every federal judge and justice understands that if they personally want the autonomy they now have they must oppose these ideas.
Right. Because if the court had a self-policing arrangement — like the Senate has — well, forget it, Jake, it’s Chinatown.
Democrats generally don’t think the judiciary is an equal branch of government, probably because it was nearly a rubber stamp for the worst of the worst of Democrat opinions and policies for years. Now that it is acting in a way that is intellectually honest to the spirit and the words of the Constitution, they can’t stand it.
Believe the Democrats when they talk about what they will do.
Get out and vote, lovers of America.
SCOTUS is a constutionally mandated 3rd branch of government. Separation of powers, etc.
How is it subject to ‘judiciary committees’ other than ‘advise & consent’ of the Senate?
Because democrats?
First of all, not just SCOTUS, but the entire judiciary is separate from the legislature. There’s nothing special about SCOTUS in that regard
But the answer to your question is that the judiciary answers to Congress because Congress has the power to remove judges for misconduct. I don’t think there’s any question that Congress can legislate a code of ethics for the judiciary, including SCOTUS, and it would be binding.
What Congress can’t do is say what the law means. Not only can’t it interpret the constitution, it can’t even interpret statutes. If Congress believes the courts have misinterpreted a statute, it can’t correct them. What it can do is pass new legislation to amend the original statute so that it now says what Congress thinks it always meant; but that would take effect only prospectively, not retrospectively. And of course it can’t do that to the constitution.
I disagree. Lower courts are the creation of Congress. SCOTUS, Executice, and Congress are creations of the Constitution. That’s not simply a difference in degree, but kind.
As for Congress removing a SCOTUS justice for violating ‘good behavior’ (a vague term, at best, and probably undefinable in this modern age of insanity), ok, I guess. Congress approved the nomination, so they might have oversite over ‘good behavior’.
Lastly, I again disagree. Congess can say what law means because words mean things – such as ‘this legislation is not subject to judicial review.’
“ Lastly, I again disagree. Congess can say what law means because words mean things – such as ‘this legislation is not subject to judicial review.’ “
I think you just made Milhouse’s point. If the plain language of a statute says “X,” but that’s not what Congress actually meant it to say, the Court is supposed to follow the letter of the law, not the intent.
So if the wording of the law is “X” but the lawmakers meant “Y,” that’s on the lawmakers, not on SCOTUS. Congress can amend its legislation; the Courts cannot legally do that. At minimum, that would violate Separation of Powers.
And no legislation is above judicial review. They might as well say that a stature isn’t subject to the law of gravity.
Congress can regulate courts’ jurisdiction to hear certain cases. So it can say that cases under a certain statute can only be heard by a certain court, and only once an elaborate administrative process has reached a final decision.
The constitution disagrees with you. The constitution explicitly says that the judicial power is “vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish”. The judicial branch, whose powers are separate from the other two, consists of the entire federal judiciary. Within that branch, SCOTUS is superior to the other courts; they’re bound by its decisions, it’s not bound by theirs. But they all equally share the judicial power, which is what the legislative branch doesn’t have.
Certainly wrong. Congress does not appoint judges; the president does, with the senate’s consent. The House has no role in the matter. But the president cannot remove judges, even with the senate’s consent. Having been appointed a judge must have absolute independence from everyone, including Congress, and therefore can only be removed for bad behavior.
The constitution doesn’t explicitly say who determines this, but the practice from the first congress on shows that they understood it to be determined by the same impeachment process that is used to remove other officers.
And the spectacular failure of Samuel Chase’s impeachment shows that they understood that “behavior” refers only to personal behavior, not to behavior on the bench. His acquittal in the senate was a rebuke to the house, which was out of line in impeaching him.
Words mean things, but the power to determine what they mean is the judicial power, which the constitution vests entirely with the courts and not with the legislature. Once the legislature has made a law it has no power to say what that law means. Only the courts can say what it is that Congress did, and Congress cannot disagree. All it can do is pass a new law to amend the old one.
See City of Boerne; that’s about the constitution, but the same principle applies to any legislation. They are equally “the supreme law of the land”.
Sheldon Outhouse runs his mouth.
Democrats seem unaware that if they try it, and fail to abolish democracy in America, then Republicans can do likewise and remove all Democrat members of SCOTUS. Democrats wouldn’t tolerate that of course so …
Sen. Whitehouse has a track record. He probably has each of the Justice’s high school yearbooks marked-up, highlighted, tabbed and ready for when each Justice is under oath. He’s prepared to say/do anything (in front of cameras), for as long as it takes, in order to Protect Democracy.
A track record? I’d like to see him on a track! The man’s a clown.
Do you recall him questioning Justice Kavanaugh about his high school yearbook? A clown? Yes, but you are more likely to see Sen. Whitehouse on a track, if there is a camera on the track that he is chasing.
Senator Whitesonly is disqualified from relevance and credibility simply by virtue of his own existence.
When Whitehouse leaves a room, it’s as if someone of remarkable intelligence has entered.
It is past time for Trump to assume dictatorial powers.
Would you rather live under democrat rule?
One thing’s for true – we ain’t gonna vote our way out.
If he were to do that he would justify everything the Democrats say and do. The only reason they’re wrong is because he hasn’t done this and has shown no sign of any intent ever to do so.
Do you think Lanceman doesn’t know that already? It’s called a pre-emptive strike. Pre-emptive strikes are generally considered self-defense. His point is that it’s going to happen. Better that it happens with people we support at the helm because the alternative is not acceptable. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
“The constitution is not a suicide pact” is a wicked and illegitimate slogan of would-be dictators. The constitution is the only thing that gives the US government any legitimacy. The moment the government rejects the constitution it becomes illegitimate and with no authority, and has no right to do anything.
If the constitution is dissolved then the United States is also dissolved; so if you claim that obeying it will lead to the USA’s dissolution then you should just go ahead and dissolve it. But then what makes you better than anyone else? Why should Trump be in charge and not Ibram Kendi or Stacy Abrams, other than his having been duly elected under the constitution?
Whitehouse is a turd that refuses to be flushed. How anyone even his democratic collogues can stand to be in the same room with him is beyond me. The AG should investigate whether he previously steered any funds to any of his wife’s pet green projects.
“Whitehouse is a turd that refuses to be flushed”
*PLEASE* don’t go so easy on him!
Don’t overlook the end game here. This rule chicanery is just a front to gin up their army to take another assassination attempt.
The entire point of the left’s actions against the supreme court is to have the public view them as rogue and illegitimate. They want to create thousands of Luigi Mangiones, emotionally unstable people who will attack the left’s political enemies.
That would be suicidally bad judgment. The right has perhaps 50-100 x the actual firepower of the left. And know how to use it. You will note that that has not happened here.
Yet.
Why does he not get more flak about his all white/ no black country club? Or did he resign and I missed it?
See above. There is no evidence whatsoever that the club excludes blacks from membership. It happens (or happened at the time this was reported many years ago) not to have any black members, but how many rich black yacht-owners are there in New England who would be interested in joining?
Should the GOP keep the House or Senate or both, or via the DOJ/FBI, very thorough investigations into both Weldon Shitehouse and Jamie Clown Raskin would be in order.
Whitehouse is now as jowly as Ted Kennedy used to be, Here’s to hoping he ends up the same and soon,
Leave a Comment