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

[–] mister_monster@monero.town 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's very much wrong, you can't read english.

[–] Juno@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ahh. See how you said that?

That's very wrong, AND you can't read English.

It's both things in the same sentence. Like how there's a supreme court, and lower courts which congress can ordain.

Hey dumbass. They "ordain" supreme court justices when they question them and vote on them before they're appointed.

If it's so wrong, why doesn't the president just appoint them and done? It's because you are actually reading it wrong. Congress DOES ordain the supreme court's members. They do it in public for all to see.

[–] gogreenranger@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

And now the Supreme Court, who interprets the Constitution as part of the checks and balances, is making noise that it could potentially disagree.

Also, as someone who is so versed in English, you understand that a sentence can refer to more than one thing, right? I can write a sentence, post to Lemmy, and kick a football. Only the sentence is what I write. The comma separates them.

Legal decisions have been decided on commas and they can be incredibly pedantic.