Republicans accused Democrats of trying to undermine the court with the measure and vowed to block it from advancing in the Senate, making it highly unlikely to become law.
Although I agree with this bill, the NYT calling it "strict new ethics rules" is a bit much. Reading the requirements in the bill itself, it struck me as legislating that SCOTUS justices do the bare ethical minimum required of most every other judge - in other words, it's the type of bill that shows up when an organization demonstrates that it is incapable of self-policing.
What's shocking is 100% opposition by Republicans to a bill requiring a Justice to recuse if a close family member receives a large gift from a litigant - literally, that's in the bill.
How is this controversial? Senator Graham says why - requiring the court to act ethically will "destroy" the court. He's saying, we don't care if justices are ethical so long as they're partisan.
Congress needs to step up here.
By background, no. Current lawyer, Classics major.
But... I am presently defending a Bittorrent copyright infringement case and negotiated a software license agreement a few weeks ago.
I mean, the original Latin version is basically the same as the English translation. And Jerome lived in Jerusalem among native Hebrew speakers when doing his translation in around 400 CE. So, I don't get the comments that it's edited for political purposes. If there's a mistranslation, it goes back to the beginning and has held steady for 1600 years.
Also, not to lose sight of practicalities, if a billion Christians have relied on the "wrong" version over the last 1600 years, doesn't that make the "wrong" version orthodox? The "right" translation at this point is heretical.