this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
212 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10180 readers
12 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
remington
alyaza
TheRtRevKaiser
Gaywallet
JuBe
JCPhoenix
kalanggam
circularfish
knokelmaat
212
Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court (thehill.com)
submitted 1 year ago by trashhalo to c/politics
57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Arotrios@kbin.social 98 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 60 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Arotrios@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] housepanther@lemmy.goblackcat.com 9 points 1 year ago

You're damn right he's not arguing in good faith! 100%!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mister_monster@monero.town 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mister_monster@monero.town 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Well, except for the fact that acts of congress require legislation, which the supreme court can find unconstitutional.

[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Congress can write laws that the SCOTUS is not allowed to review. They've actually done this in the past

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Juno 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not true, it says the Supreme Court AND inferior courts

[–] mister_monster@monero.town 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The constitution creates the supreme courts. The Congress can make inferior courts.

[–] Juno 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"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

[–] gogreenranger@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] fuzzywolf23 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're ignoring that congress does, in fact, ordain supreme court justices

[–] gogreenranger@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

They do until the Supreme Court interprets otherwise.

[–] mister_monster@monero.town 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's very much wrong, you can't read english.

[–] Juno 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] gogreenranger@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Arotrios@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] experbia@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] skwerls@waveform.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How about we set the number to 0 and go from there.

[–] SkepticElliptic 2 points 1 year ago

We set it to √2 and let the fun begin.

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

And SCOTUS is allowed to pick whichever interpretation they like.

[–] experbia@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah... this was my first thought when I read it. Very unfortunate and ambiguous phrasing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theforkofdamocles 1 points 1 year ago

Fuckin’. A.

[–] reverendsteveii 66 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We've gone from "we're not corrupt" to "you can't do anything about it". He's not denying the corruption at all anymore.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] verdare 45 points 1 year ago (2 children)

the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate the Supreme Court

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the Constitution gives the Supreme Court most of the authority that it has given itself either.

[–] sparky@lemmy.federate.cc 10 points 1 year ago

That’s correct. The Court decided in Marbury v. Madison that it ought to have the power of judicial review. Lo and behold…

[–] mister_monster@monero.town 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You stand corrected.

[–] fades 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, they do not stand corrected because what they wrote was correct, not corrected by someone else

You stand corrected when you make a statement and someone says no, it’s xyz. You stand corrected, acknowledging your mistake

[–] ConsciousCode 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I guess "checks and balances" means nothing, then. What happens when congress passes laws to regulate them and they just say "nuh uh that's unconstitutional" when it's obviously and demonstrably not?

[–] runiq@feddit.de 17 points 1 year ago

My guy Sammy probably thinks 'checks and balances' are concerning his bank account.

[–] plantstho 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is what happens.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] keeb420@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Alito: congress can't regulate us. But we can regulate congress and the executive branch.

Founding fathers: the fuck you just say?

[–] mister_monster@monero.town 6 points 1 year ago

The founding fathers wrote the constitution and then established judicial review. So I'd say theyre perfectly happy with the way that works.

The supreme court doesn't regulate anything.

[–] skellener@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago

He’s wrong.

[–] megopie 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So fun fact about the Supreme Court, no where in the constitution does it say they have the right to strike down laws for being “un-constitutional” they just kind of have them selves that right.

So you know… fuck’em

[–] lostwonder 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Deleto Alito

[–] PelicanPersuader 3 points 1 year ago

Delito.

[–] Irv@midwest.social 10 points 1 year ago

I saw an argument that the "necessary and proper" clause in Article I, Section 8 lays out the authority quite nicely:

Congress has the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof".

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 9 points 1 year ago

Nothing in the Constitution limits the power of Congress over the federal government either. Kind of a stupid assertion. Also, it's a dangerous game to play, because if Congress can't "regulate" the courts then they are limited to impeachment tools.

[–] JeSuisUnHombre@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

... then who the fuck does?

[–] TheOlympian@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

~~Billionaires~~ Friends who take the Justices on vacation.

[–] VoxAdActa 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nobody. They are the Supreme Guardian Council, which is why I will only ever refer to the so-called "chief justice" as "Ayatollah Roberts".

[–] mister_monster@monero.town 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You joke but it is true. The justices on the court can be impeached, and their regulation is legislation, in that the court has to uphold the law unless it conflicts with the constitution, that's the mechanism, they can't be directly compelled.

load more comments
view more: next ›