Senator Chris Murphy has dismissed claims by the supreme court justice, Samuel Alito, that the Senate has “no authority” to create a code of conduct for the court as “stunningly wrong”.

The Connecticut Democrat made those remarks in an interview on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, adding that Alito “should know that more than anyone else because his seat on the supreme court exists only because of an act passed by Congress”.

“It is Congress that establishes the number of justices on the supreme court,” Murphy said. “It is Congress that has passed in the past requirements for justices to disclose certain information, and so it is just wrong on the facts to say that Congress doesn’t have anything to do with the rules guiding the supreme court.”

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

    I really think this is something that could be argued. You seem to be arguing for a strict interpretation of the constitution rather than a lot of ones we see today that have changed repeatedly and/or made more modern interpretations. A strict interpretation would also mean that the supreme court doesn’t have the power to decide if laws are constitutional or not as that’s not specifically in the constitution nor granted with an amendment.

    https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/

    • mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Congress shouldn’t be able to implement arbitrary rules on the Judicial branch any more than the Executive branch should. Internally, SCOTUS already has self-imposed ethics rules that are suppose to be followed; similar to the ethics rules in Congress passed for itself.

    • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you think judicial power is? The power to hold dinner parties it’s? It’s literally the power to interpret the law. Its not written because everyone with half a brain can understand that.

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

        Then maybe a super strict “as written” interpretation of the constitution is dumb.

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

          Except that is an “as written” interpretation because it would take intentionally misunderstand to not understand what judicial powers entail. You aren’t making a point against anything, just being dumb.