Expand and term-limit SCOTUS. Why does a branch of the government operate this way?
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
310 points (96.4% liked)
politics
18883 readers
4081 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There’s merit to the idea that a branch of government shouldn’t be as affected by what the current administration happens to be. In practice, it’s been republicans throwing piss baby fits to delay any democratic candidates until a republican administration, but the initial intent wasn’t as flawed.
Branches of government should be affected by elections. That's the ultimate decider in a democracy. Voters have a right to elect the stupid party. It's the responsibility of better people to do better in elections.
Also, the Constitution says the Supreme Court clearly is created by Congress. So Alito is not even being an "originalist" here. The Constitution doesn't even say that the Supreme Court can decide laws are unconstitutional. Isn't that Marbury v. Madison or something? The Supreme Court just decided they could do that.
Lying ass "originalists".
Yep. The reality of what all of us were taught in US History and Civics classes is very different from the reality and has been since we learned about it.
It's much harder to keep people in line when it's all run on house of cards in good faith lol.
The Supreme Court has always been bad except for a brief period of a few decades after FDR threatened it with packing.
Good. Now they need to do something about it.
Knowing Democrats, the most that'll happen is the supreme court will get a bad yelp review
Like Texas. Definitely a 1 star state.
Alito's trolling because he knows Democrats do not presently have the votes to change a single thing about the Supreme Court
If Alito is the originalist he says he is he should be against judicial review.
He's only an originalist when it benefits his warped world view.
“Originalism” has as much to do with original intent as Republicans do with the belief in an actual republic.
Necessary and proper clause:
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 in any Department or Officer thereof.
— Article I Section 8 Clause 18 US Constitution
Under this clause congressional power encompasses all implied and incidental powers that are "conducive" to the "beneficial exercise" of any enumerated power. This is established by the SCOTUS in 17 US 316 McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). This includes any power enumerated in Article III of the US Constitution which is what establishes the third branch of Government, the Judicial branch.
Alito is just trying to play semantics with the term "regulation". In that "regulation" has a formal understanding of deriving from rule making and not legislating. But no member of Congress is pitching that we need some executive or legislative office extending a regulatory power over the court. Congress wishes to establish by fiat a code of conduct that the Justices must abide by.
And by the exact same clause in the Constitution, Congress has the right to open investigations into anything that they may legislate upon, including this.
The biggest question is can Congress compel the Justices to divulge any information. And the answer is something we've really been needing ANYWAY. We have laws to properly identify crime. We need either Congressional rules or actual laws, that indicate what's an impeachable offense. Congress has the ability to pass a law that if a judge doesn't come clean about their dealings, that the Judge is to face an automatic impeachment vote.
That's the part where Congress gets wishy washy on it. Because if a Judge isn't coming clean about their dealings and we have such a law, suddenly all the members of Congress have to go on the record for "do I approve of underhanded dealings?" But YES, Congress absolutely has the power to "regulate" the Justices. The Founders absolutely intended for Congress (for better or worse) to be the branch that's supposed to keep all the other branches from being corrupt, and it's up to the voters to keep Congress from being corrupt. That's how we made this form of Government.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the sponsor of a bill to reform Supreme Court ethics standards and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also shared on social media that the Journal author of the interview with Alito is the lawyer for Leonard Leo, a prominent conservative legal activist who reportedly organized a fishing trip to Alaska that Alito attended alongside Paul Singer, a hedge fund manager whose plane they took.
“The lawyer who ‘wrote’ this is also the lawyer blocking our investigation into Leonard Leo’s Supreme Court freebies,” Whitehouse tweeted. “Shows how small and shallow the pool of operatives is around this captured Court — same folks keep popping up wearing new hats.”
All government needs checks and balances.
Anyone told Alito his court has no legitimacy?
As if he would care. They're flaunting their illegitimacy right out in the open. Thomas has been for years, it's just taken a while for people to notice and call attention to it.
Oh yeah. The constitution totally does not make it clear that the legislature has the ultimate authority after the states and people and that the congress is not the higher house. im not doing the /s oh wait. doh.
They will balk over Alito's statement, but my money is on them not having the balls to do anything about it. Once again, Democrat lawmakers are going to prove that they are just a bunch of cowards who won't follow-through and do anything about this. They prove they are doormats and because of that Republicans have been stepping all over them for decades now.