Samuel Alito Says Congress Lacks Authority to Regulate Supreme Court

Politics
1

Alito, I hate to say it, but you are 100% full of ■■■■ on this one.

Sorry.

The Constitution may have technically “created” the Supreme Court, but Congress ultimately put it into operation.

The Constitution also created the Presidency, yet the Congress has made laws regulating the Presidency in the matter of ethics in numerous ways.

Alito’s statement is simply absurd on its face and he discredits himself by saying it.

Yes, Congress can certainly impose a binding ethics code on the Supreme Court and should do so immediately. It should pass the law in such a way as to prohibit judicial review of said law, consistent as was done with the Mountain Valley Pipeline.

Justices and their spouses would be banned from accepting gifts, meals, travel or vacations. If invited on a trip, they would be required to pay the fair market value for all travel, meals, lodging and other accommodations. They would be limited to $50,000 a year in outside income from college instruction. Book revenues would be permitted, but the Justice would be permanently recused from any cases involving the publisher and associated companies.

Justices and their spouses would be required to place their assets in a double blind trust for the duration of their service.

They would also be subject to increased scrutiny on the sale or acquisition of real property.

The spouse’s political activity would be considered grounds for recusal on the part of the Justice if necessary.

Nope, Alito, you are dead wrong on this. Just having the hubris to say this discredits you.

Saying things like this delegitimizes the Supreme Court far more than any decision ever will.

So I not only oppose this statement, I condemn it.

2 Likes
2

Why shouldn’t Congress have these same rules?

1 Like
3

Congress has ethics rules, which I believe should be tightened.

4

They should. Maybe even stricter rules.

But unfortuantely, they write the laws.

5

and judges decide cases

1 Like
6

Since the only people who would have standing to oppose such a law in court would be SCOTUS itself, I’m thinking this would be an original jurisdiction case. If so, and I’m not entirely certain, he’s right. Congress ability to regulate the courts does not extend to cases of original jurisdiction, only to “all other cases”

7

I would like to see donations to the Elections limited to 50 000 too.
Much more serious consequences are in the bought elections. They make our ‘Democracy’ a joke.
If a justice is found to be biased and favorable to someone who gifted them something then yes…look into it. But to nickle and dime a justice for accepting a ride in a luxury plain/boat…no.
Congress should go fry a bigger fish like a President sitting in the WH now who pays NO TAXES and lies consistantly about bribes HE GOT from corrupt Governments.
All this belly-aching about SCOTUS is just deversion to avoid looking at the REAL disgrace.
How about making a man with a son for an addict and a crook making him NOT allowed to be a Pres. A President can not be exposed to a second hand fumes or smoke from a crack and coccain addicted son.
Maybe the dog chewed on some stuff and is going arround bitting SS folks.

1 Like
8

I believe that Congress should have the power to look into cases of wrong doing like if Justices are biased and play favorites to someone who gifted them sizable stuff. There has to be something there BEFORE Congress goes in.
If there is a crime then yes but not going in to see if they can find a crime.
FIND a crime being the operative term here.
I hope I said this clearly.

9

Not to worry.
Our bright, informed and vigilant votting crowd will easily correct any possible problem with that by pushing the correct tab on the voting ballot.

10

They do, its called impeachment

1 Like
11

I know, are they the same as what the propose to impose?

12

Samuel Alito and the “In the Constitution Hoax”

Time and again, conservative justices on the Supreme Court have cloaked decisions in the doctrine that the Constitution must be interpreted according to the stated contents of the Constitution. This contrasts with arguments that view our understanding of the common good has advanced beyond the thinking of a group of male 18th Century slave owners as well as needing to accommodate changes in medicine, technology, and tradition.

At present, the Senate is considering imposing a code of ethics on the Supreme Court; something that court has resisted amidst a cacophony of reports of justices hiding largesse, largely from wealth conservatives. In an article that appeared in BusinessInsider, Justice Alito is reported to assert that Congress cannot regulate the court because no such power is granted in the Constitution.

Well and good, but when will Justice Alito also acknowledge that the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional? That power was asserted by Chief Justice Marshall in the Marbury v. Madison decision early in the 19th Century.

That non-Constitutional power has been the basis of numerous decisions that Alito contributed to; most notably shredding much of the Voting Rights Act and Justice Thomas’ interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

So it seems, Justice Alito invokes or ignores the rule that a power “must be in the Constitution” depending whether it fits his preferences or his cash flow

How is this anything but rank hypocrisy?

1 Like
14

All good, but double their salary.

15

Whose? The ephors? Absolutely not.

16

The number one objective of members of the Federal government is to enrich themselves and their families.

17

Everywhere

18

:rofl:

How?

19

Why should they take the job then? You KNOW the fringe benefits as it were are part of the attraction. They can easily make that in the private sector. These guys ain’t exactly public defenders. They are in a way but you get my drift.

20

Just a point, but didn’t the executive have to consent to these laws by signing them?

21

Then they can stay out of it.