Justice Samuel Alito Insists Congress Has No Power To ‘Regulate’ Supreme Court
Justice Samuel Alito Insists Congress Has No Power To ‘Regulate’ Supreme Court
In an interview in the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion section, he says there’s no room for Congress to set rules for the court.
You're wrong Alito, Congress can definitely make rules and laws to regulate you. They have the explicit authority to do that.
"The court can be trusted to self-regulate"
That's bullshit. With your unethical bribes being accepted and the bullshit rulings you've been making have proven you're an incompetent corrupt court.
255It's right on the courts' info page
Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices.
159But will congress enforce the rules? By enforce, I mean using the power of Impeachment and voting to convict under said Article(s) of Impeachment. Otherwise, any rules are pointless. A president can only be prosecuted after leaving office, how do prosecute a sitting supreme court justice who serves for life? Even if you did, they'd still be a sitting justice that can rule from prison since criminal conviction =/= impeachment conviction, and I'd imagine the case could go up to the very court that he/she sit in, and it only takes 4 of their collegues plus their own vote to overturn their own conviction.
In this political climate, it's practically impossible to convict a justice under the impeachment procedure.
33An impeachment is not a criminal trial, the Supreme Court would have no authority to make a decision in an impeachment.
Impeachment is purely a political tool to remove nefarious actors from the government. So an impeached justice would have his spot on the bench taken away, and then would be a regular citizen who can face trial and imprisonment like any other.
If they decide to ignore that rule, it’s literally the job the of the president to have them arrested and brought before congress to face their impeachment.
I would hope if the court tried to play that hand, congress would actually start using their authority and install a new court, but I trust congress to have a spine as much as I trust my 102 year old neighbor to mow his lawn.
But don’t worry, that would be like the 3rd constitutional crisis we’ve had in 5 years. They’re getting kind of boring now anyway.
14
They can, but they won’t.
5Alison is in the fuck around phase.
1
No balances, only cheques I suppose
100Haha. Yes. Basically they want to stay kings and Queens.
11Cash rules everything around me, CREAM get the money
4
We the people made up the rules and we can change them in any way we want. If the supreme Court has some kind of magic that stops that they are free to deploy that but in the meantime we can assume that they are flesh bags like the rest of us.
59He means absent a Constitutional amendment. And he's correct.
Congress authority is limited to saying what type of cases the court can take and how many justices there are.
Constitution says they are lifetime appointments. Can't really attach rules to that. Even if they break the rules, they are still lifetime appointments.
Only way out is death, retirement, or impeachment. I think only one justice was ever impeached.
24Congress can impeach Alito and remove him from the bench. So, yes, they have some major muscle to flex. Unfortunately, the GOP is so corrupt, they wouldn't impeach Alito for for shooting a random stranger on 5th ave and having sex with their corpse., in broad daylight, on live TV.
7I guess we could just just pass a law that any supreme court justice that sits on the bench after attaining the age of 80 will be summarily executed in celebration of their achievements.
Then when the alw is challenged to the court, the textualists can't argue that it's cruel and unusual punishment because it is infact a celebration.
1I believe the proposals being floated right now are for instituting term limits by having justices retire to Senior Justice status after a set number of years. They'd still be technically appointed and able to sit in on cases in special circumstances, but not on normal duty.
1
Funny, the doctrine of judicial review doesn’t exist in the constitution either.
53Expand and term-limit SCOTUS. This system is ridiculous
47Ah, so only two of the three branches of government are subject to checks and balances?
46Well... yeah. Have you seen the shit those untouchable godkings have been getting away with?
11In theory, a few of them should be impeached, tried, convicted, disbarred, removed, & jailed, since lying to Congress under oath is a federal offense I'm pretty sure.
3
"The court has investigated the court and found no wrongdoing on the part of the court"
39“The court has investigated the court, and the majority of the court found no wrongdoing on
ourthe courts part.”6
I do believe they have entered Fuck Around and Find Out territory
29SCOTUS won't be able to do shit against a determined president. They're the most powerful branch now, but only one branch has direct access to an enforcement arm, and it isn't SCOTUS.
They better tread carefully. People are only going to become more extreme the more they continue dictating from the bench for the wealthy and corporations. They could be completely neutered as an institution.
9
The branch of government with lifetime appointment can't be regulated by anyone else?!? LOL
How convenient!
The only thing stopping that from happening now is that Democrats are too weak to push the issue.
29Okay, who pooped💩 on the sidewalk in front of his house?
19Don’t tempt me.
11My dog would poop there every day
6
Sorry
2Don't be sorry. Just do it more.
1
@mizu6079@lemmy.world after 3 days...
1
In that case, he should waive any protections he gets from congress' laws.
18Well someone better regulate their silly asses cuz what they're doing now is throwing civil rights back to Jim crow.
11Apparently the Supreme Court doesn't either.
10Right now, Alabama is ignoring a SCOTUS ruling. So what power do they really have?
8scotus rulings only apply to the underclasses, like democrats, black people, queer people and other communists.
6
And some state legislators believe the Independent State Legislature interpretation of the Constitution.
He and they are wrong.
5So the constitution gave SCOTUS the authority to regulate women's bodies?
5The court gave the court that authority.
When you think about it, the court itself has been unconstitutional since 1803 when they decided for themselves that they had the authority to decide what is and isn’t constitutional. Marbury V Madison is the case that “gave” the court the power of judicial review. A power that is not enumerated in the constitution whatsoever, and was entirely made up by the Supreme Court.
Judicial review is a bullshit system and should have been struck down with an act of congress immediately. Unfortunately, Americans have apparently always been lazy, and delegating constitutional questions to the court was seen as easier than making amendments all the time.
In short: sack the court and start again. Create a new entity for making constitutional interpretations, and make SCOTUS back into what it was supposed to be: the final court of appeals for the judicial system.
15Then what would stop Congress from creating blatantly unconstitutional laws? Getting rid of judicial review sounds like a good idea now because the court is run by fascists, but I'm not convinced that getting rid of it entirely would make things better.
I think judicial review needs some serious revision and way to check against its power, but getting rid of it completely makes the legislature too powerful.
2This is a stupid take. Marbury didn't set new precedent. It said what everyone already knew. Judicial review is part of western jurisprudence for centuries and centuries.
-4
Supreme Court: “We have ultimate power”
Alabama: Sure do, bud.
2And I insist that the supreme Court is illegitimate.
2And I insist that the supreme Court is illegitimate.
1Disgusting.
1