Posted on 07/28/2023 8:19:09 PM PDT by RandFan
Justice Samuel Alito said Congress has “no authority” to regulate the Supreme Court in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published Friday, pushing back against Democrats’ attempt to mandate stronger ethics rules.
Alito, one of the high court’s leading conservatives, is just one of multiple justices who have come under recent scrutiny for ethics controversies that have fueled the renewed push.
“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told the Journal. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”
Although the Constitution enables Congress to structure the lower federal courts, it explicitly vests judicial power within a singular Supreme Court.
Alito and some legal observers argue that means Congress can’t prescribe certain regulations for the high court without running afoul of separation of powers issues.
Chief Justice John Roberts has also questioned Congress’s ability to act, but not as definitive as Alito’s new remarks. Many court watchers who disagree with the premise believe that Roberts’ questioning has given fodder to Republican objections.
“I don’t know that any of my colleagues have spoken about it publicly, so I don’t think I should say,” Alito told the paper. “But I think it is something we have all thought about.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) was among the Democrats who rejected Alito’s reasoning, writing on X, formerly known as Twitter, “What a surprise, guy who is supposed to enforce checks and balances thinks checks shouldn’t apply to him.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
He is correct!
Separation of powers. It’s the law.
and the great irony if Congress or anyone else tries to “regulate” SCOTUS, they would simply declare such actions unconstitutional ... end of story ...
co-equal branches, so he is correct
Congress has saddled the executive branch with 10s of thousands of unfireable bureaucrats so why not saddle the courts with 10s of thousands of rules. Thr separation of powers is a nice theory but has been destroyed my modern think.
Roger that Sam. But,b you think they care?
Same truth in reverse....nothing gives power to the Supreme Court to regulate or manage the House/Senate. If they were to pass a bad law, that’s different.
I am surprised that Justice Alito is ignorant of the US constitution.
Article III Section 2 says “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.”
It’s in the constitution in plain English, Justice Alito. Congress can make Exceptions and Regulations that restrict the appellate power of the US Supreme Court.
The constitution itself says: Art iii
2: 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 appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
That is not what is says, read it again slowly
I’m not so sure that’s true.
Yes - congress by itself can’t usurp another branch of government - but they could get an amendment added to the constitution that could…
Likewise - what happens if/when the exec office or the legislature refuses to concede to the SC’s rulings?
I’ve read it 100 times, and it means exactly what it says. It’s just never yet been used. Congress could long ago have overturned Roe v Wade by removing the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over state abortion laws. They just didn’t want to.
You are correct and the Supreme Court has stated just that several times on other type cases (I cannot remember which cases), but Congress cannot set ethics standards for the Supreme Court, e.g. A Justise cannot write a book and sell it.
If I am misrepresenting your statement please excuse me- it is late and I've had a few beers.
“That is not what is says, read it again slowly”
Congress has never availed itself of this Constitutional power, but, in fact, it can take certain things off of the table for SCOTUS to rule upon.
If I, a retired social studies teacher, am aware of this, so should a Supreme Court Justice.
Alito is not “ignorant of the US constitution.” He said congress has no authority to regulate SCOTUS ethics. devere quoted an irrelevant section.
That happened with Andrew Jackson and the SCOTUS.
No you aren’t misrepresenting me. The constitution does say that Justices serve during “good behavior”, so I infer that Congress could if it wished specify what constitutes “good behavior”. In practice this specification has only occurred by impeachment of behavior considered not good, and the 1804 impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase established a precedent that conviction requires criminal conduct.
Of course....third branch.... Democrats don’t care. They’re nothing but whining, carping, bleating liar babies.
SMACKDOWN!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.