Samuel Alito Says Congress Lacks Authority to Regulate Supreme Court

The Justices are getting excellent compensation and in fact are now eternally ASSURED of excellent compensation.

Due to Beer v United States and Barker v United States, the Justices MUST be granted annual cost of living increases which have proven to be extremely lucrative.

The Chief Justice now makes $298,500 and the Associate Justices now make $285,400.

Just think of it, next year the Chief Justice will make the salary of a first year associate at a major law firm.

:smile:

But seriously, you add on another $50,000 for law school teaching and other such activities and they make decent money. Add in a book deal and they are good to go.

They certainly don’t need freebies from people who clearly are not offering those freebies from the generosity of their heart.

:rofl:

they certainly do not need to be reporting a gift from a friend when that friend has no business before the court. Some things are just none of the governments business

1 Like

Lets see, you think some enterprising US attorney is going to file charges against a sitting US SC justice at Harry McDuffy’s circuit? And SCOTUS is going to let it happen Knowing that any one of them could be next? I’m thiking SCOTUS will consider themselves to be officers of the US like ministers and consuls and tell Harry McDuffy and the US Attorney to sit the ■■■■ down. There is a remedy for bad behavior at SCOTUS, and its not in court,

This is jibberish.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to hear cases involving foreign “ministers and consuls,” not “Officers of the United States.”

Justices of the Supreme Court aren’t immune from prosecution, if they break the law - and they certainly don’t have “original jurisdiction” to hear cases they’re a party to.

stick to real estate

nothing about “foreign” in there

if the congress passed this law, it would see as much use as the Logan act. The thought that a US attorney would get within 10 ft of it is laughable

1 Like

Writing in the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton noted that ambassadors and other public ministers are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns and consuls are the public agents of the nation.

For most of the early history of the United States, our representatives to other nations went under the title of Minister, not Ambassador, which generally was reserved for major posts or for major Treaty discussions. Only after 1900 did we switch to having representatives go out under the title of Ambassador.

The four diplomatic ranks of the United States reflect this, Counselor, Minister-Counselor, Career Minister and Career Ambassador.

Public Ministers as used in the Constitution refers EXCLUSIVELY to the representatives of foreign nations. The Federalist and other sources confirm this beyond any doubt at all.

3 Likes

It is by definition foreign.

The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction for cases involving US officials. This isn’t even law school stuff, it’s high school civics.

Whether or not the law would be criminally prosecuted has nothing to do with your ridiculous claim of original jurisidiction.

1 Like

Government. Civics is the responsibilities of citizens.

1 Like

Going to be hard to find people who have what it takes.

You think they’re doing it for the salary now?

Federalist papers? The bck and forth arguments of the founders in the Press. legally as meaningful as an oped

you having a problem with comprehension?

:rofl:

No, definitely not.

This is the funniest way you’ve been wrong, so far.

The originalist clarifications of the meaning of the clauses.

Nope. For the fringe benefits. Take that away and what do they have? A “nominal” paycheck for a super important job requiring hopefully remarkable skill sets.

which ones, the ones wo wrote the first oped or the ones who wrote the one disagreeing? The federalist papers are not some secret key to the constitution, they are an argument about what terms meant. Same argument that happens today. with them and a super secret cracker jack decoder ring, you can find the treasure, guess which one will get you the treasure.

yep, you are deffnately having a problem with comprehension. Try reading what I said again and maybe you’ll get it someday

I think it depends on the way it’s done.

I don’t think congress can write rules for the Supreme Court.

I do think Congress and the senate can pass laws for the government to follow.

No, I don’t think so.

The Justices themselves would beg to differ, as they are currently riding the doctrine of originalism, which places great importance on works such as the Federalist Papers and other extemporaneous documents.

But, just for fun.

Lets step back from originalism and proceed under the textualist approach, which I favor as a first approach anyhow, with originalism being secondary if nexcessary.

Textually speaking.

The term public ministers occurs four times in the Constitution, twice in Article II and twice in Article III. It does not appear in any of the amendments.

I will give those occurrences, in the full context of their occurrences.

From Article II:

Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

From Article III:

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

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.

In three of the four occurrences, it occurs in the context of ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls. In one occurrence, it occurs in the context of ambassadors and other public ministers.

It is the occurrences in Article II that are most telling. In the appointment clause in Section 2 of Article II, Ambassadors, public ministers and consuls are pointedly grouped together, followed by Judges of the Supreme Court, followed by all other Officers of the United States, a term which includes not only officers in the executive branch, but all lower court judges. Officers of the United States is a vastly encompassing term but does NOT include ambassadors, public ministers and consuls as these officers are diplomatic in nature.

Later in Section 3 of Article II, it is stated that the President shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers. The Constitution exclusively vests the diplomatic function in the President and public ministers clearly is meant to refer to foreign diplomatic officers.

As you can see, a textualist approach makes the same ironclad case that an originalist approach does.

Public ministers refers exclusively to diplomatic officers.

1 Like