trashhaloJul 29, 2023

Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court

https://beehaw.org/post/6860111

Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court - Beehaw

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.

Show threadArotriosJul 29, 2023

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.

The 3rd Article of the U.S. Constitution

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.

National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org
Show threadmister_monsterJul 29, 2023

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, tye good behavior part, is already understood and judges in the federal court system can be, and have been, impeached.

Show threadFlowVoidJul 29, 2023

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.

Show threadmister_monsterJul 29, 2023
Well, except for the fact that acts of congress require legislation, which the supreme court can find unconstitutional.
Show threadFlowVoidJul 29, 2023
Congress can write laws that the SCOTUS is not allowed to review. They’ve actually done this in the past
Show threadmister_monsterJul 29, 2023
Do you have an example of this happening?
Show threadFlowVoidJul 29, 2023
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_McCardle
Ex parte McCardle - Wikipedia

Show threadmister_monsterJul 29, 2023
That’s not what you said 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, which it can do. You said congress can pass laws that the supreme court can’t interpret and has done it before, do you have an example?
Show threadFlowVoidJul 29, 2023

Using the same process, Congress could strip appellate jurisdiction from the SCOUTS 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.

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.

Show threadDominic

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.

Jul 30, 2023 at 1:08amWeb
Show threadFlowVoidJul 30, 2023

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 from the SCOTUS itself, not from all federal courts.

Which means that the DC Circuit Court would make a final, non-appealable decision on whether their colleagues in the SCOTUS can be bound by ethics laws - just as they are.