A closer look at the Supreme Court's FY2024 appropriations request provides a useful reminder of how little the Constitution says about Congress's power of the purse
Certainly one easy way for the Congress to put pressure on the court to adopt, say, a more adequate ethics standard would be to cut their travel budget and attach a rider prohibiting justices or staff from accepting outside funding for travel.
It is realistic to note that the release of the Alito and Thomas financial disclosures will not move the needle though in a just world it would, including Thomas' rub our faces in it hiring someone to release a blatantly partisan statement defending himself.
Maybe Sheldon Whitehouse should pull a Tommy Tuberville and block the appropriations until they institute real and reasonable ethics reforms.
> Cases in which a prisoner proceeds “in forma pauperis” don’t require a filing fee.
Nitpick: While technically true, this statement implies that only prisoners can file in forms pauperis. I believe that is false; I know if at least one non-incarcerated litigant who attempted to do so. (I don't know if he was successful, but IIRC the main contention was whether he could file his financial information under seal. There was no mention of a dispute on whether in forma pauperis was available to him.)
I rely upon journalists and authors to do one thing only, to tell me sth I do not already know: I didn't know any of this. ... Tsk tsk, yet another thing to amend in the Supreme Law, our legislative inability to claw back salary and perks. At a bare minimum, we should make Sam Alito fly second-class from now on, while traveling to his free Mediterranean vacation from Peter Thiel.