Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito no doubt intended to shock the political world when he told interviewers for the Wall Street Journal that “No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

Many observers dismissed his comment out of hand, noting the express language in Article III, establishing the court’s jurisdiction under “such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

But Alito wasn’t bluffing. His recently issued statement, declining to recuse himself in a controversial case, was issued without a single citation or reference to the controlling federal statute. Nor did he mention or adhere to the test for recusal that other justices have acknowledged in similar circumstances. It was as though he declared himself above the law.

  • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    199
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    No part of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power of judicial review either. The court created that power out of nothing. If you wanna get pissy, Alito.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      78
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or sovereign immunity, absolute immunity and qualified immunity. They’re just shit the court made up.

      • FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know why but I can’t picture Alito in a full suite of armour with helmet and sidegun and all… the image I have of him with such a loadout on himself is that of a frail, weak, elderly man blabbering about his authority on people’s life…

        Wait, that’s how I would see more or less anyone of that sort nowadays.

        Maybe American institutions nedd a bit of a refresher

    • Nahvi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can’t tell you how happy I am to see someone point this out here.

      As if the ridiculous set of laws we have weren’t bloated enough already, the nearly bottomless stack of court cases that modify them all and stack on each other make it impossible to have a fair trial.

      • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s telling that the people who want to eliminate the Executive Departments because they don’t have Constitutional authority to create laws have been silent on Judicial Review.

        • Nahvi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Agreed. Personally, I think it is because we don’t bother to really teach the Constitution in schools. We summarize the Bill of Rights, read the first line or to of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and then pretend students understand it.

    • jscummy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Regardless, the constitution very clearly does have language establishing that Congress can regulate the SC. Alito should be embarrassed to be spewing such baldfaced and easily disproved bullshit, but here we are

    • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I made the same point elsewhere in this thread… But in fairness, the Constitution gives them final judicial appeal power (pretty much word-for-word).

      It’s an interestingly thin line that their judicial decision about any dispute is binding. It’s clear they have judicial decision about any dispute of fact. From that, it seems obvious in retrospect that would give them final appeal power on any dispute of law as well. Ironically, that they aren’t the final decisionmaker on State Law seems the oddity based upon the wording of their mandate.

      That’s the point of a judiciary, sadly. If two parties disagree on something relevant, we’re supposed to have a neutral arbitration about which party is correct. One party says “the Constitution does not allow abortions” and the other party says “that’s not how it looks to me”. Lacking congressional action, there’s already relevant law one way or the other and people are disagreeing on which way the law goes. In an ideal world, a “free” country should err any ambiguity on the side of individual freedom, but even then there’s a disagreement on whether a fetus could legally be seen as an individual.

      I think the problem with Marbury is that nobody saw exactly how broken the idea of having one authority to decide “who decides what is true when two parties disagree on the facts?” could extend. As the US court is a Common Law court, I wonder how much of that comes from European judicial style anyway.

      • mrpants@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wow what a stupid misunderstanding you’ve spent so many paragraphs elucidating on.

        • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not exactly sure why you had to give that useless reply, but have a nice life.

          EDIT: Also if 4 paragraphs is “so many”, you might need to retake 4th grade :)

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Dissolve the court. Arrest Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh - the crimes committed by those four are known to the public. Appoint a special investigator for each remaining justice. If they’ve so much as taken a stick of chewing gum from someone with business before the court imprison them too. Every one of them is delinquent in their duty to preserve the impartiality and legitimacy of the court. Every one of them has cosigned Alito’s statement that the court is above regulation. Every one of them endorses this clown show where the highest court in the land is blatantly, publicly for sale. If they won’t protect the legitimacy of the court we need to take steps to protect the legitimacy of the court from them. They can declare themselves immune from prosecution but no one is immune from the will of a people united in their support for real justice.

    • Nahvi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      At least 59 people think this is a high quality post or more likely just agree with it.

      no one is immune from the will of a people united in their support for real justice

      How do you intend to enforce that will? While you aren’t saying it outright it almost sounds like you are thinking about grabbing a red hat and storming the building.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        How do you intend to enforce that will.

        Frankly, I don’t. That would make me a dictator. But you’ll notice that history tends to have a pattern of punctuated equilibrium where things stay mostly the same for a really long time, then become very different very quickly, then stay that way for a really long time. Those decades where nothing happens tend to be associated with people forgetting that they can have whatever they want whenever they decide to get it. Then they remember that nothing works unless they do, and that turns into a few weeks where decades happen. Sometimes people just need a hand remembering that they always have and always will run the show.

        It’s interesting that your first thought is violence. It’s direct, and it has worked in the past, but I think that even aside from the issue of morality violence is becoming less and less effective as states are more prepared for it. What I would propose if I had the power to make this decision is literally nothing. I think we should all sit on our hands and do absolutely nothing for a couple days. Coordinate with one another so that we can make sure no one goes hungry while we do nothing, and so that we can accurately convey to the master class what it would take from them to get us back to doing something. Then we wait, and I don’t suspect it would take very long. In fact, I honestly believe that if a majority of us did nothing on Monday that we would all have whatever we wanted by Friday. Much more complex to implement than violence, it requires a lot more coordination and cooperation, but I think that it’s both morally superior and more effective if you can pull it off. It’s easy to defeat violence. All you need is superior violence and the state is really good at violence. They could pretty handily stimy violent revolution. But a flat refusal to participate in any manner is a lot harder to deal with.

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

          A nation-wide walk-out is definitely a fun thought experiment. If we could even have meeting of the minds on a state level, I bet having a single state-wide walk-out would shift political discourse quite a bit. I suspect that there would be an overwhelming fear of it happening again.

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

          Dissolve the court. Arrest Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

          Why are you acting like removing Alito was something OC or I said?

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Judiciary Act of 1869 sets the size of the Supreme Court at 9. Congress would have to pass a law to make that happen.

      In order:

      The Republican controlled House won’t vote for it.

      Republicans in the Senate would filibuster it.

      Democrats in the Senate will never get rid of the filibuster because they love their procedural excuse for breaking campaign promises.

      • Pantsofmagic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes but according to Alito, Congress has no power over the supreme court so that act is moot and anyone can just make up a number.

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

          I didn’t think about that. If Congress can’t set the number of justices, then the law currently setting it at 9 is illegal.

          I think you’re actually right, people can just make up a number and go with it. If the President and Senate agree to 500 justices, and Alito is correct, then there are 500 justices. If both later decide they only want 3 justices, then 497 of them are fired. There is no legal limit, which means it literally can be any number as long as the president nominates and the Senate confirms.

          Brilliant find!

  • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sounds like Alito is having a mental break with reality and needs round the clock psychiatric care to ensure his safety. Clearly unfit to sit on any court.

  • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Supreme Court should be elected by popular vote and have to be reconfirmed by the states every four years.

    • tburkhol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      90
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      One national election every four years is enough for me. I can’t even imagine what the campaigns for judges with the power to rewrite the Constitution through creative interpretation would look like, but if they can put Trump in the White House, they could put him on the Supreme Court.

      Term limits. Active oversight. Maybe go back to requiring 60+ votes to confirm so the GOP can’t shove the Federalist Society hack-of-the-day through with a simple majority.

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem with requiring 60 plus votes is that it’s would be open season for the GOP to prevent nominations, then the second they had the Senate again, they’d remove the rule. Just like they did the last time.

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

            Except that’s not how it works. At some point there will be a rule that can be removed with a simple majority. Because that’s all the constitution demands.

            Also, these super majority rules are always abused by the rightwing to hinder actual progress.

            No. The actual fix is restoring voting rights and making voting day a national holiday. Then we need to add jail time for voter suppression.

            That’s the basics of a start to fixing things. I can think of two or three more changes that we’d have to make before even beginning to talk about changes to the senate and supreme court.

            But to get any of the changes to stick we’d have to pack the court with judges who are not partisan hacks.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I think four years might be too short for this. Maybe eight? Idk though. The period doesn’t really matter. There just needs to be something done.

    • BB69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      No. Judges should not be political. I don’t know the answer here, but being an elected official isn’t the right course.

        • DharkStare@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Maybe the supreme Court should be like jury duty. Randomly select from a pool of judges from around the country to fill the position for a certain period of time.

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

              I didn’t mean select random people to be supreme Court justices. I meant select from existing judges to temporarily serve in the supreme Court.

              It’s the only way I can think of to remove as much politics as possible from the SC.

        • Chocrates@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is my concern. In an ideal world we would have well educated apolitical folks with decades of good faith judicial practice on the supreme Court.

          We don’t live in the ide world so judges are political and you are voting for them when you vote for your representatives.

          Honestly if we fixed the house and Senate (add Puerto Rico and DC as states, uncapped the house) it might get better in the long term, but doesn’t solve the problem.

          The Constitution did not plan on the elected officials being corrupt and unwilling to do “the right things”, so I think it has proven to be fundamentally broken.

          I don’t know how to fix it.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Judges should not be political

        Judges are already absolutely political. Judges get appointed based on whether they’ll support the policy agenda of the person appointing them. Being said, I’m with you inasmuch as giving the people who made Donald Trump president the power to pick the supreme court all by themselves is a bad fucking idea.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is political. Whether they should be or not doesn’t really matter.

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s how you get Trump on the Supreme Court. Elected justices is not great.

      My solution is ~16 year terms spaced out like Senate terms, where if the person dies or retires the appointment just fills out their term, and each presidential term gets an appointment or two. Removes the benefit of appointing someone young so we can have more experience on the court.

      • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        My country solved the problem by having 9 years non renewable terms and requiring a 2/3 majority in the parliament to elect a judge. This avoids them thinking they are the state and prevents any hyper partisan hack from entering the court. Of course this is only possible because none of the major parties is trying to make the state implode but it works well.

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          What happens when no party can get a 2/3 majority or no house can achieve a 2/3 plurality?

          • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s an agreement between the parties to nominate the judges. The center right and center left parties nominate most the judges and there are a few places reserved for the parties more to the right and left, in a way that keeps a balance between judges nominated by right wing and left wing parties. Sometimes a party will try to nominate someone that gets rejected by the other parties and then they have to pick someone else, but usually the process is a footnote in the news.

            • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah that sounds really nice. I bet y’all can get a budget passed consistently as well. We can’t and it’s destroying our credit

          • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Portugal, but other countries have similar systems in place, for example Germany has a similar system but with 12 years terms. Some countries like Spain and France give different institutions (the head of state, the parliament, other courts, etc) the power to nominate a set number of judges, to try to prevent the court from becoming lopsided, but honestly I don’t think that works that well, France in particular has an history with judges participating in party politics.

      • Frank J. Zamboni@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        9 justices 18 year terms. Staggered so that every 2 year election cycle 1 justice is up for election by popular vote. Required to be member of Bar in at least one state.

    • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Terms limited to the number of Justices. Staggered so every year 1 Justice is retired and replaced. Maximum term of 20 years (just in case Congress gets antsy and provides funding for more chairs.)

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Congress gives a major check on the Supreme Court: they’re the only branch without access to the military. They can make their decisions, and they can attempt to enforce them. But they oughta remember that they’re the ones with no sway on enforcement

    • droans@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s what SCOTUS seems to miss. Their entire power comes from the belief in their authority. If Congress or the Executive Branch chose to ignore their ruling, they can’t do anything.

      The danger with the Supreme Court was never that they would make awful rulings that we’d follow. It was that they would make rulings so awful that we’d have little choice but to reject their authority, creating a system without the checks of the court.

  • uranibaba@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    I see more and more crazy stuff happening in the US. Will there be any actual change or are we just going to see more crazy?

    • NAK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t let the media portrayal of the current times affect you reality. Most of the stuff going on now has been going on forever and will continue to go on forever.

      Take the faithless electors. There have been a total of 58 elections in which 165 electors have not cast their vote as the state prescribed. This first Wikipedia quotes was in 1835

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Durbin detailed the ethics problems raised by Alito’s two-part interview in the Wall Street Journal, which was conducted by journalist James Taranto and David Rivkin, a practicing lawyer.

    Rivkin happens to be counsel of record in Moore v. United States, a major case that was pending in the Supreme Court at the time of the interview and is now set for argument, which may determine the federal government’s authority ever to impose a tax on “unrealized gains” or wealth.

    The actual law, in Scalia’s words, requires Alito to determine whether a “reasonable observer who is informed of all the surrounding facts and circumstance” would doubt his ability to exercise detached judgment, given his mid-case work with Rivkin.

    The frequent recusals could easily be avoided by investing only in mutual funds (as do the other seven justices), but Alito has obviously chosen to place his personal financial choices ahead of the court’s need for participation by all nine members.

    He has so far “voluntarily complied” with other federal ethics statutes, including financial disclosure requirements, but perhaps he will eventually decide there is no “sound reason” for him to keep reporting on his stock holdings.

    In May, he told a meeting of the American Law Institute that “I want to assure people that I’m committed to making certain that we as a court adhere to the highest standards of conduct,” and “We are continuing to look at things we can do to give practical effect to that commitment.” At least two other justices — Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh — appear to agree with the chief.


    The original article contains 975 words, the summary contains 252 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!