Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court
Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court
Justice Samuel Alito said Congress has “no authority” to regulate the Supreme Court in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published Friday, pushing back against Democ…
Justice Samuel Alito said in an interview that Congress does not have the authority to regulate the Supreme Court, pushing back against Democratic efforts to mandate stronger ethics rules for the justices. Alito argued that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate the Supreme Court. While Chief Justice John Roberts has also questioned Congress's ability to act, he was not as definitive as Alito. Some Democrats rejected Alito's reasoning, arguing that the Supreme Court should be subject to checks and balances. The ethics push comes after recent revelations about undisclosed trips and other ethics issues involving several Supreme Court justices.
You're viewing a single thread.
He's flat out lying.
US Constitution Article 3, first fucking line:
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
I also would like to point out the "good Behaviour" clause in the next line that determines the length of a justice's tenure, and under which Alioto has clearly disqualified himself from serving as a justice.
He’s not arguing in good faith. He knows if he says that out loud the right wing media will run with it like it’s fact. Then when it’s actually proven false the MAGAs will refuse to believe it.
Agreed - it's clear he's just trying to throw out something to take the heat off. I hope that this particular mangling of the Constitution will backfire on him, because even a first year law student would find the argument facetious and self-serving at best, and it gives his critics further fuel to not only attack his position as justice, but grounds to call for disbarment.
You're damn right he's not arguing in good faith! 100%!
Permanently Deleted
Your bolded part just says they can create inferior courts. I don't understand what point you're making emphasizing it.
The sentence after that, not emphasized, the good behavior part, is already understood and judges in the federal court system can be, and have been, impeached.
Good behavior is generally used to justify lifetime tenure as a judge, unless impeached.
However, the Constitution does not guarantee lifetime tenure on the SCOTUS itself. Nothing prevents Congress from requiring a Justice to transfer to a lower court after, say, 18 years on the SCOTUS.
Well, except for the fact that acts of congress require legislation, which the supreme court can find unconstitutional.
Congress can write laws that the SCOTUS is not allowed to review. They've actually done this in the past
Do you have an example of this happening?
That's not what's happening here at all, this is not a case of a law congress proscribed the supreme court from ruling on, that's a case of congress taking away appellate jurisdiction from the supreme court for a particular case, which it can do. You said congress can pass laws that the supreme court can't review and has done it before, do you have an example?
Using the same process, Congress could strip appellate jurisdiction from the SCOTUS in any case that involves a particular law. Which includes a law that they just passed.
The key is that when the SCOTUS reviews laws, it is nearly always exercising its power of appellate jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction. And the Constitution allows Congress to impose whatever regulations it wants over appellate jurisdiction. So if the SCOTUS isn't allowed to hear cases involving a law, then it can't strike down that law.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
I seriously doubt that Congress can create a law that infringes on the First Amendment and simultaneously strip all federal courts of their jurisdiction to review that law.
If that were the case, then simple majorities in Congress and a Presidential signature would be enough to effectively override the Constitution. That’s far easier than an amendment.
First of all, nothing in the Constitution gives courts the power of judicial review. They sort of made up that power all by themselves.
Regardless, if Congress decided to regulate the SCOTUS then they would most likely strip jurisdiction only from the SCOTUS itself, not from all federal courts. This is also how it was done in the past. The SCOTUS basically conceded that as long as some judge still had the power of judicial review, then Congress could remove the SCOTUS itself from the process.
Which means that the DC Circuit Court would make a final, non-appealable decision on whether the Constitution allows their colleagues in the SCOTUS to be bound by ethics laws - just as they are.
Judicial review isn’t in the Constitution either.
That's a very detail ignoring take on the matter but technically you're right.
For context:
Judicial review exists because it makes sense. The framers decided to bind the government with a Constitution, but never explicitly wrote up an enforcement mechanism. The judiciary already interprets laws, so they get to be the enforcement mechanism by default.
The framers also decided to write “during good behavior” in Article III, but never defined what that means. Congress writes laws, so it’s logical to me that Congress gets to define what “good behavior” entails.
That's not true, it says the Supreme Court AND inferior courts
The constitution creates the supreme courts. The Congress can make inferior courts.
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Lemme cut the middle out of that sentence
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Which is exactly what they do, they establish and ordain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomination_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Right, but the comma separates the "Constitution creates the supreme court" and the "Inferiors courts that Congress may establish." Cutting out the middle removes key text.
It seems pedantic, but that's exactly the argument that either has been or will be made, because that comma implies that the Supreme Court and "inferior courts" have separate sources that govern them.
You're ignoring that congress does, in fact, ordain supreme court justices
They do until the Supreme Court interprets otherwise.
That's very much wrong, you can't read english.
Ahh. See how you said that?
That's very wrong, AND you can't read English.
It's both things in the same sentence. Like how there's a supreme court, and lower courts which congress can ordain.
Hey dumbass. They "ordain" supreme court justices when they question them and vote on them before they're appointed.
If it's so wrong, why doesn't the president just appoint them and done? It's because you are actually reading it wrong. Congress DOES ordain the supreme court's members. They do it in public for all to see.
And now the Supreme Court, who interprets the Constitution as part of the checks and balances, is making noise that it could potentially disagree.
Also, as someone who is so versed in English, you understand that a sentence can refer to more than one thing, right? I can write a sentence, post to Lemmy, and kick a football. Only the sentence is what I write. The comma separates them.
Legal decisions have been decided on commas and they can be incredibly pedantic.
in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
I could see it being argued that this mentions (1) "one supreme Court" and (2) "such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish," so the bit about Congress applies only to the inferior courts.
Except that it's never worked that way throughout the history of United States.
The Supreme Court itself is established by an act of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Congress has always had the power to not only set the number of justices (last paragraph on that link), but to impeach them as well.
A misplaced comma doesn't trump 240 years of legal precedent, no matter how much Alioto might wish it did.
A misplaced comma doesn't trump 240 years of legal precedent, no matter how much Alioto might wish it did.
Fortunately true.
Unfortunately, in the larger court of public opinion, it can very effectively be used as basis to rile up and outrage the domestic terrorists loyal to the corrupted judiciary, so there will most likely be some trepidation about clarifying this.
How about we set the number to 0 and go from there.
We set it to √2 and let the fun begin.
And SCOTUS is allowed to pick whichever interpretation they like.
Yeah... this was my first thought when I read it. Very unfortunate and ambiguous phrasing.
The more important part is after the highlighted part, I was thinking the same thing
Fuckin’. A.