Justice Alito says Congress lacks the power to impose an ethics code on the Supreme Court - eviltoast
  • Rusticus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    295
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Think about this for a second: a Supreme Court justice thinks NO ONE has the power to hold them to an ethical standard. I can think of no better reason to hold them to an ethical standard than that.

    • candyman337@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah really, if a justice literally says checks and balances don’t exist, maybe we should listen and respond accordingly. Also maybe we should fire him, and most of the others.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. Checks and balances motherfucker! We need to swing the scales back into balance so hard. He and Thomas are launched into orbit and never heard from again. Run over by an orbiting Tesla.

    • Erisrand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Congress already has a check against SCOTUS, impeachment. Alito is actually probably right here. It would take a constitutional amendment to create a new lever for congress to pull.

      Which is complete ass because it will never happen. That document is a failure in the 21st century and is holding us back.

  • Gray@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    210
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is genuinely quite a scary belief coming from a SCOTUS justice. In effect he is saying that the SCOTUS is the only institution in the US that is completely untouchable by legislation. That elevates the SCOTUS to a level beyond any other government position. Effectively our benevolent overlords. Given how low of approval ratings that the SCOTUS has, their recent series of ideological activist decisions, and the fact that they aren’t even elected positions, I find myself increasingly in support of a fundamental redefinition of the SCOTUS as we know it. I don’t see why we shouldn’t stack the SCOTUS when they’ve fundamentally abandoned their duty to any level of fairness or responsibility for the citizens of the US.

        • outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Almost, impeachment is one big one allowed. I believe only one justice was impeached but I bet the issue is, you can’t get republicans to agree as then democrats can put one in. Which is a terrible injustice so they’ll make sure to vote down anything to make sure the supreme court stays right winged.

      • Nepoleon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because Supreme Court cant create their own laws directly, missing legislature power, having no direct power to control national finances/budgets, a main power of a country and they dont have control of the executives including army and police. All their power depends on laws made by legislature and constitution.

        Thats how the three pillars of power works in all democracies. Just because your legislature or executives or even forefathers who made the constitution fucked up, doesnt mean the supreme court is an absolute monarchy. The biggest piece of shit mistake you made was having a two party system. In other countries, supreme courts arent as binary partisan. Coalitions of Partys vote way more reasonable judges to supreme courts

        • blanketswithsmallpox@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Considering the Supreme Court’s entire schtick is the arbitrary definition of a word’s meaning by the sitting justices… I’d disagree.

          They can literally change the definition of a law at a whim. It doesn’t really matter at that point what the law even says unless it’s lawyered up specifically to remove their powers. Even then, don’t expect the conservative justices to go down without a fight lol.

        • Wrench@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem is that they blatantly collude with the other two pillars. They can’t make their own laws, but they can collude with the others to bring a case to their doorstep to make a ruling not based on precedent or good faith interpretation of the law.

          They effectively can create whatever laws they want, just with extra steps.

        • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          George Washington warned against bicameralism, but they ignored him. Our Supreme Court positions have always been non-partisan until recent history.

        • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thats how the three pillars of power works in all democracies.

          And the amount of people willing to dismantle this particular one means it does serve its purpose well.

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The “unelected” part is on purpose, though I’d prefer sortition.

        The biggest group of voters may decide who controls the government, but they shouldn’t decide who takes places in the supreme court. At least not in the same mechanism.

        Well, unless you can make it a 95% “in favor” vote, of course. Then, I guess, there’d be no hope anyway.

      • Gray@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s funny you say that because that’s exactly where my mind went too. A system with elections, but a class of officials that exist outside of that system and that can overrule it and can’t be touched by it.

    • whofearsthenight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s also an incredibly dangerous thing for a justice to say because it just begs for a constitutional test. The court is probably best known for the ability to decide whether a law is constitutional, or judicial review, which is not spelled out in the constitution. So let’s say congress passes a law concerning ethics on the court and the court says “that’s not constitutional” and congress just goes “neither is judicial review.” Pure chaos. The courts power mostly is like that episode of The Office where Pam says she’s the office manager and everyone just goes along with it. The court says it has judicial review authority, and everyone just went “ok.”

    • moosepuggle@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I like the idea of terms being twenty years and judges being selected randomly from existing sitting judges in lower courts. Takes all the air out of the balloon around Congress fighting over approving SCOTUS judges.

      • Gray@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I kind of like that idea, except I think it’s less likely to create a non-partisan court and more likely to create a randomly partisan court. Like, odds are that five of the justices would still have a partisan lean. Is that fair to the American people? Also, when Republicans block a president from having their judicial nominations confirmed, then it becomes even more likely for conservative justices to make it to the SCOTUS. Same for if Dems blocked. It would incentize obstruction.

        I’ve felt that we should simply have the SCOTUS be elected like we do in many states. Why shouldn’t the people have a direct say in who makes the greatest decisions about our constitution? It was one thing when the court was ostensibly non-partisan, but at this point if it’s going to be partisan either way, we should just make it elected.

        Alternatively, we could bake the partisanship into the court. Make the court have an even number, then reward an equal number of justices to the major parties (parties receiving more than x% of the vote in presidential elections or something like that). If libertarians or greens ever get more popular, we can have the court autoadjust to split between more parties. That’s my hairbrained idea that would probably be too messy to be worth it.

  • mindbleach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    1 year ago

    State judiciary: powerless versus their congress.

    Federal judiciary: unquestionable.

    Get the fuck out of our government, you miserable bastard.

  • heavyboots@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sure sure, and by that logic, I also submit that the Supreme Court lacks the power to impose their own ethics on an entire gender.

    • Lem453@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Instead of term limits, the rule should be to replace the longest serving justice every 4 years. On average, every president will therefore replace one justice each term barring any accidents.

    • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean term limits aren’t going to fix the problem. They arguably may make them far worse. It then just becomes a job of tactically making sure you secure the election of the executive branch and senate. With senate being the most important since if senate sits on their hands you sort of get a “Scalia situation”. Where there will just be an empty seat until you get executive and senate to agree on a candidate.

        • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes but no. I’ll elaborate, there is a concept called a recess appointment where if senate is on recess (which they do twice a year) where the president can fill in a temp until the end of their next session however National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning (2014) basically has allowed the concept of pro forma session as a valid way to disrupt a recess. So what is a pro forma session it is basically a session of senate where the President Pro Tempore (Longest running senator who handles procedure) delegates their job to a singular senator who then calls the session to an end and repeat this every 3 days and bing bang boom. You have a senate who is not on recess but is taking a break

          So in a 5-4 vote, they dictated

          “for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.”

          So while there is technically a system to fill vacant government positions, it has been basically loopholed out of the equation since 2014.

  • TerryMathews@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    1 year ago

    If Congress lacks the authority to regulate the Supreme Court, then certainly they also lack the authority to fund the Supreme Court…

  • MicroWave@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 year ago

    Justice Samuel Alito says Congress lacks the power to impose a code of ethics on the Supreme Court, making him the first member of the court to take a public stand against proposals in Congress to toughen ethics rules for justices in response to increased scrutiny of their activities beyond the bench.

  • Plaid_Kaleidoscooe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Then who exactly is supposed to be the check on the courts? Is that not precisely the domain of the legislative wing of govt? That’s like some basic civics shit.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s bullshit, but he’s probably not wrong. The Legislature’s checks on the Judiciary are primarily:

      1. Funding
      2. Congress has the authority to create all courts below SCOTUS and provide for those courts’ jurisdiction
    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would be, if we elected people who cared more about doing good than they do about increasing their own fortunes.

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’re all multi-millionaires, and care much, much more about increasing their wealth than they do about doing meaningful good. Remember when we found out both Republican and Democratic senators exploited their classified COVID briefings to make money on stocks?

    • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Nah, that’s too peaceful and hippie. Let’s pray for Old Testament God and their unimaginable non-eucludean angels who have thousands of eyes and burning wheels and infinite wings with a baby fetus in the core with the absolute most fucked up horrific natural death possible.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s a key trick to evaluating statements by the republican justices… re-read anything they say from the lens of they are completely full of shit and have zero integrity.

    These are not serious people. Don’t discuss them as if they are. Tell your own representatives that they need to act on this LOUDLY or they will lose your vote.

  • JTode@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is just… wow. The breathtaking arrogance of it.

    It’s not often these swine can actually get a visceral reaction from me anymore, but wow. Time to get back to work on that Novelty Giant Cigar Chopper I’m working on.

  • HR_Pufnstuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, as I see it, Mr. Alito… You can either have Congress do it, or you can have an angry mob do it. Which do you prefer?

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’re not as rowdy as we need to be, but you’re not going to get the full picture from corporate media. They have a vested interest in downplaying or vilifying everything rad we do.

        • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The masses aren’t going to rise up over the supreme court. It’s too abstract and far away for most people in the crowd to care that much about.

          They absolutely need to be brought down a few pegs though. Congress needs to take Alitos statement as a challenge.

      • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I live near Alito. There was certainly concern that Americans aren’t as pacified as you think–if the riot police and swat that staged near his house, after the Roe decision, was anything to go by.