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.

  • reverendsteveii@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    2 years ago

    We’ve gone from “we’re not corrupt” to “you can’t do anything about it”. He’s not denying the corruption at all anymore.

  • verdare [he/him]@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    2 years ago

    the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate the Supreme Court

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the Constitution gives the Supreme Court most of the authority that it has given itself either.

  • HalJor@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 years ago

    Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution says Supreme Court Justices “shall hold their offices during good behaviour”. If Congress can define “militia” for the purposes of the Second Amendment, they can define “good behaviour” for this.

  • ConsciousCode@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 years ago

    I guess “checks and balances” means nothing, then. What happens when congress passes laws to regulate them and they just say “nuh uh that’s unconstitutional” when it’s obviously and demonstrably not?

  • megopie@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 years ago

    So fun fact about the Supreme Court, no where in the constitution does it say they have the right to strike down laws for being “un-constitutional” they just kind of have them selves that right.

    So you know… fuck’em

  • Irv@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    I saw an argument that the “necessary and proper” clause in Article I, Section 8 lays out the authority quite nicely:

    Congress has the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof”.