Congress only has the authority to pass laws where that power is specifically granted to them by the Constitution.
I assume Alito is going with the separation of powers doctrine, and that Congress was not granted authority over the supreme court. The Supreme Court was created by the Constitution and not by Congress.
So…if the majority of the Supreme Court agrees with Alito, what does Congress do about it?
Will they impeach all justices that don’t agree that Congress has that authority?
1 Like
Remove the Court’s jurisdiction.
so tell me, where exactly did I say I thought they were?
Oh yeah, I didn’t.
Like I said, you have reading comprehension issues
and this will stop the court from reading it however they like… how?
completely missing the point that according to Alito’s statement the congress has no power to do so on this matter. So, if he majority of the court agrees Congress has no such authoity on this issue, what does congress do?
Alito has argued that Congress does not have the power to “regulate” the Supreme Court - he has made no claims about whether Congress has the power to strip the Court’s jurisdiction (and going by SCOTUS precedent and Alito’s own decisions, it would be difficult to articulate a reason why Congress would not have that power “on this matter.”)
That all depends on several things. Whether the court will claim original jurisdiction, which would negate Congress’ regulatory power over the court and its ability to strip the court of jurisdiction. The congress does not have those powers in cases involving original jurisdiction. Whether the court finds the law unconstitutional sans jurisdictional questions and decides to rule on that and sidestep any jurisdictional question (kind of like they just let the 4th circuit get away with). Whether the court decides to recognize congress’ authority over it at all. Which brings it all back to the original, there is a remedy, and its not in court.
As we’ve already been through, whether or not SCOTUS would have “original jurisdiction” isn’t really in dispute - the Constitution and 200 years of precedent make the very limited situations where the Court has original jurisdiction very clear, and this isn’t one of them.
I think you’ll find that Alito, along with the rest of the textualist members of the Court, are already on the record as to Congress’ plenary power to strip jurisiction. The current Court is less likely than most to play games with that.
Yes, the remedy is in the law - not the Courts.
All of this misses the point, anyway.
The purpose of this legislation would not be to prosecute Justices on the Bench for flying on their friend’s private jets - the purpose would be to have a concrete list of rule for them to follow, just as the President - and every other person employed by the government - has.
1 Like
I should point out the obvious.
Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.
So the Justices can’t get in trouble for any of the crap they have already done.
This would just effect things going forward.
Most likely if Congress cracks down, the Justices will grumble, but ultimately obey the new rules.
From a political perspective, I think they’d pretty much have to.
as I’ve stated many times, its really up to them. If they decide they do, they do.
and yet they allowed the 4th circuit to retain jurisdiction over something the Congress stripped them of.
the remedy is in the Congress and the constitution. Not a statute.
Once again you iss the big picture. The court will do whatever the court decides to do, and they don’t care whether you or me agree with it
Fringe benefits?
Unethical emoluments?
I only support this if it applies to congress, the president, and the supreme court along with anyone in a cabinet position.
But for congress critters, they would be barred from sponsoring and voting on legislation that involves things they are involved in. Their property aquisitions goes through increased crutiny as well. And if the congress critters spouces are politicly active on an issue, the congress critters have to recuse themselfs from intrudicing legislation about that issue and may not vote on legislation on that issue.
1 Like
You think they’re there for the paycheck?
No, but then I’m not the one saying “double their pay.”
Congress talking about ethics is silly! The only reason they want an “ethic code” is to intimidate judges with investigations.
I think such a code would take a amendment to the constitution. This is the same kind of BS our strong man from the 30’s was trying to pull.
2 Likes
Interesting thread but not going to lie, its complicated. Any suggestions on where I can read more to educate myself on this? And yes I know I can go and read the constitution but looking for something that explains it.
https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2389&context=facsch_lawrev
Here is a law review article from 2013.
1 Like
Congress is no position of moral authority to impose any ethics on anybody.
Hypocrites, ethics begin at home.
1 Like
