Politics

10162 readers

7 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

211

Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court (thehill.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

76 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

I could see it being argued that this mentions (1) "one supreme Court" and (2) "such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish," so the bit about Congress applies only to the inferior courts.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Except that it's never worked that way throughout the history of United States.

The Supreme Court itself is established by an act of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Congress has always had the power to not only set the number of justices (last paragraph on that link), but to impeach them as well.

A misplaced comma doesn't trump 240 years of legal precedent, no matter how much Alioto might wish it did.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

A misplaced comma doesn't trump 240 years of legal precedent, no matter how much Alioto might wish it did.

Fortunately true.

Unfortunately, in the larger court of public opinion, it can very effectively be used as basis to rile up and outrage the domestic terrorists loyal to the corrupted judiciary, so there will most likely be some trepidation about clarifying this.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How about we set the number to 0 and go from there.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

We set it to √2 and let the fun begin.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

And SCOTUS is allowed to pick whichever interpretation they like.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah... this was my first thought when I read it. Very unfortunate and ambiguous phrasing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The more important part is after the highlighted part, I was thinking the same thing