Politics

10178 readers

130 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

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

circularfish@beehaw.org

knokelmaat@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

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

submitted 1 year ago by trashhalo@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

55 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

[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Using the same process, Congress could strip appellate jurisdiction from the SCOTUS in any case that involves a particular law. Which includes a law that they just passed.

The key is that when the SCOTUS reviews laws, it is nearly always exercising its power of appellate jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction. And the Constitution allows Congress to impose whatever regulations it wants over appellate jurisdiction. So if the SCOTUS isn't allowed to hear cases involving a law, then it can't strike down that law.

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.

[–] Dominic@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I seriously doubt that Congress can create a law that infringes on the First Amendment and simultaneously strip all federal courts of their jurisdiction to review that law.

If that were the case, then simple majorities in Congress and a Presidential signature would be enough to effectively override the Constitution. That’s far easier than an amendment.

[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

First of all, nothing in the Constitution gives courts the power of judicial review. They sort of made up that power all by themselves.

Regardless, if Congress decided to regulate the SCOTUS then they would most likely strip jurisdiction only from the SCOTUS itself, not from all federal courts. This is also how it was done in the past. The SCOTUS basically conceded that as long as some judge still had the power of judicial review, then Congress could remove the SCOTUS itself from the process.

Which means that the DC Circuit Court would make a final, non-appealable decision on whether the Constitution allows their colleagues in the SCOTUS to be bound by ethics laws - just as they are.