• Shiggles
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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”.

      • blanketswithsmallpox@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • buckykat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Supreme Court has always been bad except for a brief period of a few decades after FDR threatened it with packing.

  • downpunxx@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    Alito’s trolling because he knows Democrats do not presently have the votes to change a single thing about the Supreme Court

      • downpunxx@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The DOJ could find Alito killed 100 schoolchildren and is keeping their remains in his basement where he wears them like meat suits, a SCOTUS appointment is for life, and as the Head of the Judicial branch of the United States government, the only way to remove a Supreme Court justice is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate, in which, Alito knows, once again, that Democrats do not currently have the votes to do a single thing about it

        • gravitas_deficiency
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          the only way to remove a Supreme Court justice is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate

          They’re only appointed for life. So if the Supreme Court continues to do things that are not just wildly unpopular, but actively harmful to large groups of people, someone somewhere may become furious enough that they want to help one or more Supreme Justices engage in… shall we say “accelerated involuntary retirement”.

          This isn’t an encouragement of political violence. It’s just that if you do unpopular and harmful things in a system where the vast majority of people have effectively zero legal recourse, someone will eventually seek illegal recourse.

  • grte@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    If Alito is the originalist he says he is he should be against judicial review.

  • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.”

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • HubertManne@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

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

    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.