Samuel Alito Warns Congress to Back Off

[RandySF]

Justice Samuel Alito told the Wall Street Journal that Congress has no authority to regulate the Supreme Court.

Said Alito: “I know this is a con­tro­ver­sial view, but I’m will­ing to say it… No pro­vi­sion in the Con­sti­tu­tion gives them the au­thor­ity to reg­u­late the Supreme Court — pe­riod.”



https://politicalwire.com/2023/07/28/samuel-alito-warns-congress-to-back-off/

[leftieNanner]

1. BULL SHIT SAM!

Yes, the Congress does have the authority to regulate SCOTUS.

Fuck off.

[Zeitghost]

17. Uh, where is that authority listed in the Constitution?

?

[brush]

69. The 9th and 10th Amendments ovelap and both delegate power to the people/states...

Last edited Fri Jul 28, 2023, 06:00 PM - Edit history (4)

that is not specifically designated to the United States.

The people and states of course meaning their representatives, which includes the Congress.

Nineth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

!0th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

One would think a Supreme Court justice would be familiar with these clauses of the actual "Bill of Rights."

But he might be studying some centuries-old witchcraft manuals he can use as reference material.

[SCantiGOP]

74. I think you are correct, brush

[intheflow]

83. Thanks, Brush. n/t

[Sympthsical]

146. That . . . is not what those amendments mean

Like, at all.

It has everything to do with the idea that the people's rights do not have to be specifically mentioned to be valid and protected.

It has nothing to do with Congress magically divining a power not expressly delegated to it to alter the system of checks and balances to its liking.

The Constitution isn't the Bible where we can just make up interpretations to suit, no matter how far afield they go.

Justice Thomas sometimes notwithstanding.

[brush]

152. Thanks for your interpretation. I'm pretty sure many others disagree.

Last edited Fri Jul 28, 2023, 11:24 PM - Edit history (3)

Your first graph is what the amendments say, absolutely. Right's not delegated to the United States by the Constitution belong to the states and the people.

Well, since we don't have a direct democracy, nor do the states, but representative ones where elected representatives speak for and represents the people (Congress and state legislatures) on issues that come up.

I would have to say that is fact and not debatable. Another thing that is fact and not debatable is SCOTUS currently has some corruption issues and no ethics code to curb them.

IMO the 9th and 10th, in the infinite wisdom and foresight of the founding fathers, were designed for just such unforeseen occurrences.

[Glaisne]

98. Um here:

"Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:

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.

Unlike the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction,1 Article III provides that the Court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to Exceptions and Regulations prescribed by Congress.2 Congress and the Court have construed this provision, sometimes called the Exceptions Clause, to grant Congress significant control over the Court’s appellate jurisdiction and proceedings. In addition, Congress possesses extensive authority to regulate the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, and may limit the cases the Supreme Court can hear on appeal by generally stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over certain cases."

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-6/ALDE_00013618/

In any case where the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction Congress can limit the court's jurisdiction.

"Congress also possesses significant power to prevent Supreme Court appellate review by limiting the federal courts’ jurisdiction over certain classes of cases, or even specific cases, a practice sometimes called jurisdiction stripping."

[Zeitghost]

123. That is regarding jurisdiction

Not the conduct of Justices.

Their sole power in that regards is impeachment.

[ColinC]

131. Incorrect

It couldn’t be more clear:

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:

supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make

[Zeitghost]

134. It definitely clear

But you seem to have missed that the statement you are referencing the appellate jurisdiction of the court. It's literally in the same sentence.

[ColinC]

137. The Supreme Court has the power to reverse or modify lower court decisions

That is what “appellate jurisdiction” means.


Congress clearly does not have this power, and in the exceptions outside of appellate jurisdiction -or “with such exceptions”, the court must act entirely within the regulations congress has made. The term “such exceptions” is very clearly stating the exceptions outside of appellate jurisdiction.

[Zeitghost]

139. I understand what appellate jurisdiction is

The exceptions and regulations the Constitution mentions in the relevant sections being discussed are to the court's jurisdiction over certain kinds of cases. The clause in no way gives the Congress the authority to regulate the behavior or actions of the Justices themselves.

They can impeach if they have the votes. That is their only power over the Justices themselves.

[ColinC]

141. The wording in the constitution does not suggest or state what you are claiming

Again, “with such exceptions” -outside of appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court must follow congress’ regulations, as they very clearly are already doing, in the following way:

first by requiring them to take an oath written by Congress and setting the terms by which federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, retire and how they are compensated.

[former9thward]

147. The issue is about ethics not appellate jurisdiction.

You will have to find another section of the Constitution.

[ColinC]

151. The issue is about "regulation" under the exceptions outside of appellate jurisdiction.

Ethics are an important regulation under the exceptions outside appellate jurisdiction which congress has full control of as stated in the articles we are discussing and 9th and 10th amendments.

[former9thward]

153. Well your constitution is different than mine.

Or at least how the non-internet legal community interprets the provisions.

[yardwork]

51. Really? Where is that in the Constitution?

[ColinC]

99. See post 69. The answer is the 10th amendment

Also here from post 98:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-6/ALDE_00013618/

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:

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.

[Zeitghost]

124. And it's been pointed out

That is regarding jurisdiction, not the conduct of justices.

They have the power to impeach, that is all unless we pass an amendment.

[ColinC]

127. Ummm... what makes you think "jurisdiction" only means impeachment?

It makes clear congress decides what type of jurisdiction is involved.

[Zeitghost]

128. It's not jurisdiction over judges

It's jurisdiction over cases that the Constitution addresses.

[ColinC]

129. No

supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make

[Zeitghost]

133. That statement

Specifically deals with the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

[ColinC]

135. I don't think this is true

Regardless amendments 9 and 10, which give the powers to the elected representative seems like an appropriate clarification:

9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If congress cannot regulate the entire judicial branch (as it has already) as it can the executive branch, that implies the Supreme Court can rule with impunity. It is logical to assume, and seemingly very correct, that our constitution simply does not allow that.

[Sanity Claws]

2. Checks and balances!

Congress is your check.

[EarnestPutz]

3. Boom! There you go, Samuel. Suck on it.

[3Hotdogs]

18. ---and pays your checks.

That practice could stop.

[onenote]

26. How?

Article 3, Section 1:
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

[bottomofthehill]

60. Judges get paid, says nothing about staff

Tough to be a judge with no help.

[bottomofthehill]

61. The power of the purse resides with the congress.

In a shutdown, the judges get paid the staff does not, similar to the congress, the members get paid, the staff does not

[onenote]

68. And can we get back to considering actions that are remotely likely?

You can't seriously believe that congress would pass legislation that would result in there being no staff to support the Supreme Court or that doing so would be a good thing.

[bottomofthehill]

140. If they refuse to pass an ethics package, I believe they could

And if the corruption continues at this level should zero budget the court to ensure that they put reasonable ethics rules in place. They are using the court to create wealth through bullshit projects, books and speeches. Coupled with hosting events at the court to whore themselves out. So yes, cut the money until they pass reasonable ethics rules. Hopefully the legislative threat gets it done, if not, execute the plan and cut the funds.

[edisdead]

158. Here is what I want to know?

What are you specifically willing to be ok with? If the court is corrupt and making money on the side while also making rulings that are oppressing people, what ARE you ok with doing? Are we just supposed to go along with it because we are stuck with a 200+ year old document that although guves us a way to change it, for all intents and purposes is not able to be done in the foreseeable future?

Are you ok with people actually dying or living in horrible situations because of this predicament? What options aside from “Get out the vote” do you propose because the shit this court is doing is ACTUALLY jeopardizing people’s lives and livelihoods. And by the way how insulated are you from these decisions?

I am sorry but this court is pushing people to having to live under tyranny. What is acceptable to you for people to have to endure that?

[Freethinker65]

71. During good behavior

Alito has recently been behaving very badly, flauntingly defiantly badly.

[tavernier]

73. Good behaviour?

These Prima Donnas passed good behavior years ago.

[chowder66]

102. Checks and Balances must mean the conservative justices bank accounts.

[Grins]

115. You know what else Congress can do? Impeach Court justices!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. Who cares what this partisan hack thinks?

[Renew Deal]

5. No provision in the Constitution prohibits them from regulating the Supreme Court.

If it's not illegal, it is legal.

[Zeitghost]

19. That's not how the Constitution works

Congress must be given the authority explicitly.

[Celerity]

46. Not necessarily, see the 'Elastic Clause'... Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the US Constitution,

aka the 'Necessary and Proper Clause'

for an example of implied powers (versus enumerated powers).

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-1/ALDE_00001242/

[lastlib]

90. There's a very good point!

(only problem is, the SCOTUS is the body that makes the decision what it covers.....)

[Sympthsical]

148. It doesn't work that way

The Elastic Clause does not enable one branch of government to assume powers over another branch that are not enumerated.

The roles of each branch of government are enumerated precisely because they don't want one branch suddenly deciding they can dictate to another. It only allows unenumerated powers that are in service to carrying out its expressly enumerated powers.

The Elastic Clause allows for quite a bit, but it doesn't allow for what people want here. Congress cannot use it to assume a new power over another branch of government.

Congress has impeachment if they feel it necessary.

[Sympthsical]

149. That is literally the opposite of our Constitution

Our Constitution is "If we don't say government can do it, it can't. All other power is given to the states and the people."

At least, that's how it's supposed to work.

That was a chilling statement of authoritarian eventuality.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. Right off the bat, Congress (Senate) chooses (approves) Justices & determines number on bench

Funds them?

Not 100% certain they choose the number of Justices on the bench, but then who would?

[IL Dem]

24. They also have the power to impeach.

Which to me implies right to regulate behavior.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. Excellent point. . . . nt

[onenote]

27. No, it "implies" the power to impeach. Nothing more.

[druidity33]

142. With no clear standards at ALL...

what could a justice possibly be impeached for? What line does a judge cross if there are no lines?

[onenote]

156. The same lines that a president can be impeached for.

A president could be impeached for wearing brown shoes and black socks if the votes were there to impeach.

[DBoon]

7. Is he waiting to be crowned emperor?

Or did he just grab the crown and declare himself to be emperor?

[MadameButterfly]

32. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

Except in the case of RBG, and I suspect KBJackson. Oh hell, the Democrats on the Supreme Court. Note I'm not saying all Democrats are immune from this. Just Democrats tend to nominate exceptional people to the SC instead of ideologues.

[mountain grammy]

110. Yep.. and he's trying.

[magicarpet]

8. Here's an idea Sam,...

..... FUCK OFF !

[Dave Bowman]

58. I was about to post something similar. :)

And also:

[patphil]

9. Congress should pass a law requiring the SC to comply with existing federal court ethics rules.

The Supreme Court will then be forced to declare the law unconstitutional, and go on record as rejecting any ethical requirements for Supreme Court Justices.

It would probably be a 6-3 decision, and further lower the Supreme Court in the eyes of the citizens.

[Zeitghost]

20. It would be 9-0

As was the statement they put out against reforms.

[madaboutharry]

10. Alito is a terrible person.

He has an authoritarian world view. He also is a misogynist and a bigot. On any given day he is the worst person in the world.

The Constitution does not give Supreme Court justices the right to behave like corrupt dictators.

[MadameButterfly]

35. Well, maybe it does

by not specifying any checks on it

[Scrivener7]

11. There's no provision in the Constitution that says the courts have judicial review either.

[onenote]

30. How do you think the court would rule if congress passed a law barring judicial review?

[Scrivener7]

34. Why do you ask?

[onenote]

37. Because that is more closely analogous to congress regulating SCOTUS

than SCOTUS declaring it has the power of judicial review.

[Scrivener7]

40. And? He says there is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress can regulate the court.

I pointed out that there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the court the power of judicial review.

Not sure what your point is assigning relative values to analogies.

[Celerity]

47. Correct.

[onenote]

53. My point, of course, is the the SCOTUS will decide if ethics legislation is constitutional.

Unless, of course, you think that Congress can take away the Court's power of judicial review (and that the Supreme Court would uphold such legislation).

I think there is a good chance the case challenging the ethics bill, as drafted, would be struck down, maybe by 9-0, and i'm certain that a law barring judicial review would be struck down 9-0.

[Scrivener7]

57. Not sure why you are making an argument about this. I stated a fact.

I wasn't discussing what the court would do with an ethics bill.

[NYC Liberal]

100. Congress has the power to strip their appellate jurisdiction.

They can’t remove their original jurisdiction for specific types of cases listed in Article III, but they can (and have, several times) limited or removed their appellate jurisdiction.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-6/ALDE_00013618/

Supreme Court jurisdiction to forestall a possible adverse decision from the Court. In Ex parte McCardle, the Court granted certiorari to review the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a civilian convicted of acts obstructing Reconstruction.9 Anticipating that the Court might void, or at least undermine, congressional reconstruction of the Confederate States, Congress overrode the President’s veto to enact a provision repealing the statute that authorized the appeal.10 Although the Court had already heard argument in the case, it dismissed the action for want of jurisdiction. The Court stated, We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words.11 Since its decision in McCardle, the Supreme Court has upheld numerous legislative limits on its jurisdiction.12

Congress also possesses significant power to prevent Supreme Court appellate review by limiting the federal courts’ jurisdiction over certain classes of cases, or even specific cases, a practice sometimes called jurisdiction stripping.13 The Constitution provides for the existence of a Supreme Court, but leaves to Congress the decision whether to establish inferior federal courts.14 That broad grant of discretion has been interpreted also to grant Congress expansive authority to regulate the structure and jurisdiction of the lower federal courts.15 Separation of powers considerations bar Congress from requiring courts to reopen final judicial decisions16 or dictating a certain substantive outcome in pending litigation.17 However, the Court has upheld legislation that deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction over certain matters, including legislation that removed jurisdiction over a specific pending case.18 Jurisdiction stripping statutes may limit the Court’s appellate jurisdiction; by contrast, Congress cannot enact legislation to limit the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.19

[onenote]

111. Yes, that is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.

Not sure how relevant it is.

[NYC Liberal]

157. Because Alito is claiming that Congress has no power at all to regulate the court,

but they do. Congress has the power to limit aspects of their judicial review with regard to appellate jurisdiction.

[onenote]

164. Serious question: if Congress's power is as broad as you suggest

why doesn't Congress always include, in every legislative enactment, a provision stating that the courts, including the Supreme Court, have no jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of that legislation?

[edhopper]

43. Exactly

and right on point

[Scrivener7]

52. After I got over the blind rage at Dobbs, a thought occurred to me: "Really? You're going to

torpedo precedent? Where do you think ALL your power comes from?"

[onenote]

62. What is the relevance of that fact other than how it relates to Congress's power to regulate SCOTUS?

There's nothing in the constitution about a lot of things. Sometimes the constitution is interpreted one way and sometimes another. In the end, however, what is relevant is that the SCOTUS devices...at least until the decision is overturned by another decision or by a constitutional amendment.

Lots of posts claiming Alito is wrong. Well, we'll know that if and when legislation is enacted and challenged.

[Scrivener7]

66. Oh, lord. Have a nice night.

[onenote]

70. It's only 4 pm where I am, but you have a nice night too.

[EarlG]

12. Uh... what?

About the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Background

Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices. It also established the lower federal court system.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about#:~:text=Article%20III%2C%20Section%20I%20states,decide%20how%20to%20organize%20it.

[Baitball Blogger]

31. Good point.

[LiberalFighter]

44. Hmmm -- Congress reduce SC down to 1 SC Justice?

Take away the district courts?

Remove funding for the courts? Congress can't reduce pay for Supreme Court justices. What about regulating their staff?

Determine when they can be working?

Take away their computers?

Turn the AC off?

Require justices to use a horse to get around in the circuit?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

13. Mockalito should read the U.S. Constitution someday...

From Article III:

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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Emphasis added to aid Mockalito's obviously fading eyesight.

[onenote]

28. They can regulate the court's jurisdiction. Not the Justices.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

38. Where do you see that in the Constitution?

[Beastly Boy]

125. There is a good case to be made with Article 3 Section 1

Article III

Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Several things in this section point to Alito being full of shit. The first one is receiving compensation. It is, as per the section, contingent on their good behaviour, and since it is the Congress that pays them, the Congress determines what behaviour is good enough to warrant compensation or ability to hold their office, as long as same standards apply to all judges. Congress also determines what the "stated times" are.

Second, the phrase "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts" suggests that the standards of "good behavior" of the inferior courts apply equally to the supreme court. The inferior courts have a code of ethics that spells out what good behaviour is. At the very least, their rules must apply equally to the supreme court, according to an originalist interpretation of this section.

Of course, Justice Alito is free to hold himself up to a higher standard, but not a lower one.

[scipan]

165. I think your answer is the best one here.

In order to carry out their obligations, congress has to be able to define "good behavior" and require information from the justices regarding their actions so they can see if the justices are "behaving good".

Or else, possibly be impeached.

[onenote]

50. I see the constitution saying they can regulate jurisdiction.

That's not the same as regulating the justices.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

159. I see "AND under such regulations as the Congress shall make" ...

From a plain reading of the Constitution, that applies to all cases other than those listed as original jurisdiction, a.k.a., appellate jurisdiction.

From the OP:

Said Alito: “I know this is a con­tro­ver­sial view, but I’m will­ing to say it… No pro­vi­sion in the Con­sti­tu­tion gives them the au­thor­ity to reg­u­late the Supreme Court — pe­riod.”

Mockalito is wrong.

[onenote]

163. in context...regulations about jurisdiction.

[2naSalit]

14. Sounds a little...

Squirmy to me.

[MontanaMama]

91. 100% squirmy.

Also snowflakey.

[2naSalit]

155. Definitely!

[Effete Snob]

15. .

[The Unmitigated Gall]

16. The "Unitary Judiciary"?

Fuck off Sammy, you arrogant prick.

[MOMFUDSKI]

21. Need to knock these smug assholes

off their high horses. Wow

[dalton99a]

22. Despicable liar.

[NewHendoLib]

23. Fuck you, Alito, you partisan hack

[Cha]

29. Wah.. poor little thing thinks he's a god.

[prodigitalson]

33. uh, Sammy, they can regulate your ass right off of it with enough votes

[AllaN01Bear]

36. no more lifetime appointments for anyone period . dont bite the hand that feeds u.

[Elessar Zappa]

39. I'm getting to the point

where I think Biden and democratic governors should ignore Supreme Court rulings. They have no means of enforcing their edicts.

[Celerity]

56. This is how a part of my theory of the case for the breakup of the Union of the States works.

I have been posting on this for years here.

Over the past 5,000 years or so of human history, the average empire lasts, in terms of duration, around 250 years or so.

The United States, in its current Constitutional form, turns 250 years of age in 2039. Barring some truly massive paradigm shifts that are truly cohesive (as opposed to atomising) in nature, I, atm, unfortunately doubt the Union of the States makes it to its 250th birthday, at least in its current Constitutional manifestation.

The SCOTUS is a likely instrument of government that may well light the fuse on the powderkeg of Union disintegration. For instance, if they declare foetal personhood to be the law of the land, thus outlawing nationally almost all abortions, many Blue States will go into open defiance.

This is an instant and truly massive inflection point.

If a Rethug (or less likely, a Dem one) POTUS orders them to comply and uses force, there will be kinetic action and instant Blue State secessionist movements.

If the POTUS doesn't try and bring the Blue States to heel, then the Red States will very likely simply start to ignore previous SCOTUS decisions THEY disagree with. Chaos and kinetic violence also very likely ensues.

Again, that is but one (granted a very large one) deleterious avenue on my roadmap of scenarios. These scenarios employ the multiple inherent systemic dangers we face as a unified nation, dangers due to long wave Constitutional flaws, many of them ticking time bombs two centuries plus in the making, to show how the Union of the States could be rent asunder.

We are in dark, nebulous, dangerous waters, with currents and subcurrents full of peril. We have been for some time.

[Scrivener7]

85. I am horrified to agree entirely.

Except, I think the red states will behave as you describe no matter what the POTUS does.

And, to get admittedly freaky, while I agree that the mechanism will be those Constitutional flaws, I believe the reason will be our karma stemming from slavery which we have never paid for and which is at the root of the vast majority of our societal problems.

[Celerity]

87. Absolutely agree that 250 years of slavery was a foundational evil ingredient in the karmic stew

of the nation. It poisoned the well long before the Union of the States even existed, and was never properly dealt with, especially post Civil War.

[Celerity]

116. 'they could go after gun owners/take them in the middle of the night too a federal detention center'

Will they use black helicopters to help ensure the gun owners are placed in the FEMA camps?

Asking for a friend.

[reymega life]

118. what did trump do in Portland in 2020? federal troops detaining citizens?

[reymega life]

121. he sent out federal troops to detain the George Floyd protesters and the secret police.

[Celerity]

122. the feds are NOT going to round up gun owners, that is a RW conspiracy theory

There are WELL over 400 million (likely over 450 million) firearms floating around the fruited plain. I could see the US hitting half a billion by 2030 or even sooner.

The federal government is not going to round up and hold millions of people.

[reymega life]

126. don't think they can't because look at how innocent Japanese Americans who didn't bomb us.

[Celerity]

130. 125,284 (or so) were put into the Japanese internment camps (shame!) many of them women and

children, with a large amount of the total interned being pretty much unarmed (or barely armed).

ZERO chance that the feds can scale up to imprisoning tens of millions, millions of whom are armed to the teeth with state of the art weapons and tens (probably hundreds) of billions of rounds of ammunition.

[reymega life]

93. I see the threat of one day they'll round up people they don't like

like the Supreme Court could say that judaism isn't a religion and thus isn't protected or the Christianity isn't a religion and isn't protected and the people who are seen going to these places will be arrested for going to an "unapproved religious center" hmmmm sound familiar like in that system with the short mustache guy in the 1930s in Europe?

[MichMan]

96. Wasn't the FDR internment of Japanese Americans OK'd by congress and the courts?

There is already precedent

[reymega life]

105. the next republican might use this towards the lgbtq people

[plimsoll]

112. Well, they did it before.

Why stop now.

[Elessar Zappa]

114. What you wrote is definitely possible.

I still have hope it won’t get to that but I wouldn’t bet my house on it.

[wnylib]

67. There is precedent for a president ignoring a Supreme Court ruling.

President Andrew Jackson defied a Supreme Court decision when he forcibly removed 5 Native American nations out of the southeastern US to "Indian Territory" west of the Mississippi on the Trail of Tears.

And he is on our $20 bill.

[Elessar Zappa]

113. Yeah, it's not something I say lightly.

It would set a terrible precedent. But what if this Supreme Court gets another abortion case and decides to outlaw it across all 50 states? Should blue states comply? It’s a tough question.

[wnylib]

119. Not a tough decision for me, but I do understand

the seriousness of deciding to ignore the SC. It would lead to destruction of the legal system.

However, if such a total ban decision were made, I'd think that the system was already destroyed.

[C_U_L8R]

41. Does he know where his paycheck comes from?

Maybe there's no provision for him to be paid anymore.

[Mr.Bill]

42. Swell.

Let's hold every decision they make to that standard.

[Hekate]

45. Go screw yourself, Mister Alito. This is America, & you are not a medieval Pope

[Hassler]

48. Sam the Sham Alito continues his assault on America.

[New Breed Leader]

49. Ted Lieu tells him off

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Mr. Evil]

64. I just love a righteous smackdown!

And Ted's one of the best at it.

[Duppers]

145. Indeed!

[Delmette2.0]

97. Instead of adding Justices let's remove two positions.

Perhaps the two longest sitting Justices should go to retirement first.

[dalton99a]

101. +1

[swong19104]

54. As if following the constitution mattered

to Alito and his gang of reprobates.

[AncientOfDays]

55. Congress has power

Thus, the Constitution makes clear that, with a few exceptions, Congress may decide what types of cases the Court may hear, and the procedures for doing so. With enough political will and a willing President, it is within Congress’ authority to limit the US Supreme Court’s power by restricting what type of appeals it may accept. Theoretically, Congress could therefore limit the Court’s ability to restrict or remove certain fundamental rights by preventing it from hearing cases about them in the first place.

https://www.lwv.org/blog/not-so-absolute-power-supreme-court

See also:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47382

[LW1977]

59. If Ralph Nader focused on consumers and didn't run for President, this fuck stick wouldn't

..be appointed! The SC super majority is the reason I have ni sympathy at all for Mitch McConnell’s current health problems!

[tenderfoot]

63. Ted Lieu says otherwise

Link to tweet

[bucolic_frolic]

65. Oh. Really? Judiciary Act of 1789

As I recall Marbury v. Madison was controversial in its day because they didn't find judicial review in the Constitution either.

And there is that pesky Judiciary Act of 1789 where Congress, uh, put some numbers and boundaries to SCOTUS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789

The Act set the number of Supreme Court justices at six: one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices.[9] The Supreme Court was given exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions between states, or between a state and the United States, as well as over all suits and proceedings brought against ambassadors and other diplomatic personnel; and original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction over all other cases in which a state was a party and any cases brought by an ambassador. The Court was given appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the federal circuit courts as well as decisions by state courts holding invalid any statute or treaty of the United States; or holding valid any state law or practice that was challenged as being inconsistent with the federal constitution, treaties, or laws; or rejecting any claim made by a party under a provision of the federal constitution, treaties, or laws.[1]

[Scrivener7]

80. Yup. It's not in the Constitution? Hold my beer.

[ananda]

72. Better title: Alito has a hissy fit over Congress wanting to make him behave.

nt

[milestogo]

75. Back off Sammy boy. You're not God.

[In It to Win It]

76. I think the Constitution disagrees with him

[Warpy]

77. Acturally, it does, Your Eminence

They can increase the number of seats on the bench at any time, and should, given the fact that we now have 13 district courts to oversee.

So, Pope Sam, you'd better sit down, shut up, and take your medicine. Perhaps Congress could pass a law providing stiff criminal and civil penalties for anyone conferring "gifts" on you guys. That would fix your little red wagons, the goddy spigot would close completely.

[3825-87867]

78. No one is above the law?

Where does it say in that damn piece of paper that a supreme court justice can NOT be indicted, arrested, tried and/or convicted then jailed for a crime?

The list against Alito and Thomas would cause any other American to defend themself in court.

Maybe they can't be removed. If so, and if found guilty, then they can adjudicate from a jail cell...just like any other criminal.

I'm ok with that.

[MichMan]

86. They can always be impeached, so they most certainly can be removed

[SCantiGOP]

79. The basic foundation for our Constitution

is a system of Checks and Balances.
If Alito is correct, there is no check on the Supreme Court, other than impeachment, which is only intended as a remedy for one individual’s misconduct and not as a check on the entire branch.

[scipan]

166. Hmmm. Food for thought.

[Snackshack]

81. Right off the bat.

Someone should remind this man who obviously has an overinflated sense of self worth. The Constitution does have provisions for impeaching any justice. That in and of itself is regulation.

I am guessing the reason he feels disconnected or beyond something the lower court peons have to deal with is because it takes an act of congress to do this and chances of that happening are very very slim…but not zero.

[DENVERPOPS]

82. Hey Supreme Court Asswipe. AKA "Justice"

Just where in the constitution did it give the U.S. Supreme Court the right to intervene and decide/throw the 2000 election??????

IT DIDN'T YOU IGNORAMUS, IT DIDN'T. CHEW ON THAT ASSHOLE..........

Have many of your fellow Republican Justices, even READ the F'ing Constitution ????????????????????
Based on many of your recent decisions, I doubt it...........

[Emile]

84. Who in hell are you Samuel to judge anyone or anything?

[lonely bird]

88. The assumption is that justices can be removed only by impeachment

Does the constitution actually say that? As far as I can tell the only thing regarding justices being in place and staying in place is “good behavior”. Who or what determines good behavior? Is it defined? Is not recusing oneself from cases where there is a conflict of interest outside the bounds of good behavior?

[Lonestarblue]

89. The better solution in ky view would be to add four new justices. Unfortunately, Manchin and

Sinema would not go along. Assuming Biden wins and there are enough Democrats in the Senate to nullify the resistance of those two, I’m hoping for an expanded court in 2025.

[3825-87867]

92. Commit a crime...go to jail!

That includes everyone, Sam! You, too!

[niyad]

94. sammy should quit wasting oxygen.

[dchill]

95. One more thing on the huge pile of shit Sam doesn't know.

(Or is willing to lie about.)

[vlyons]

103. All it takes is a constitutional amendment or an impeachment

which I know ain't easy to do. So let's say Congress passes a law that the SC has to abide by the same ethics code as the rest of the judiciary. What's Alito going to do? Make a ruling that it's unconstitutional? Oh My, but wouldn't that further erode whatever's left of the SC's reputation?

Maybe they don't even give a hoot about their reputation? Maybe deploring the fall in the public's confidence is just so much play acting.

[Quanto Magnus]

104. If they decide they can't be held to ethics

and jurisdiction is Congress' only control, you could just turn them into Supreme 'Traffic' Court.... make their jurisdiction over parking ticket appeals... That would keep them busy...

[haele]

106. Sigh. At the end of the second paragraph of Article III, Section 2.

Final sentence (no comma or semicolon):
"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."
Congress can make regulations and exceptions for appellate Jurisdiction.

There is also a requirement for Supreme Court and other federal courts to be able to serve "in Good Behavior". There is nothing to say that Congress can't determine the limits or expectations that define good behavior.

Haele

[scipan]

167. Yes. In order to carry out their oversight duty. Nt

[Joinfortmill]

107. With all due respect, fuck him.

[moniss]

108. Well Chief Justice Alito has spoken

and all of us peons should now bow in his prescence and be awestruck by his magnificence.

[diva77]

117. Everything he says and does is fishy

[NNadir]

120. Sam Alito should be worried about being impeached and convicted for taking bribes.

I'm not sure he has read the constitution, or gives a shit what's in it, but...

Article 2, Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

[ColinC]

132. Constitution very plainly states the opposite

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:

supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-6/ALDE_00013618/

[mahatmakanejeeves]

136. "Get Down"

[EnergizedLib]

138. Uh, no

It’s time for this creep and Ginny’s husband to be removed.

[Initech]

143. Get these deranged cultists off the court NOW!

[aggiesal]

144. Conservative all believe in the Unitary Government ...

A Unitary government is any country where political authority rests with a single, central government, rather than several smaller governments.

Problem is that the (R) President's believes it's the Executive Branch that should have all the power & authority.
(R) Members of Congress believes it's the Legislative Branch that should have all the power & authority.
Conservative SCOTUS Justices believes it's the Judicial Branch that should have all the power & authority.

How are they ever going to figure this out?

[BannonsLiver]

150. Not naming names but there's a lot of this in the thread.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

169. What does

that even mean?

[BannonsLiver]

171. Whatever your imagination says it means.

[kentuck]

154. They can add Justices anytime they wish.

That is one way to regulate. Nine Justices is not written in stone.

[ecstatic]

160. Fuck that. He knows damn well that court is corrupt AF

Unethically stacked with unqualified right-wingers by two traitors, both of whom are russian pawns.

[lindysalsagal]

161. said no one on the last day of school....great timing, sammy. Congress is gone for the summer.

Most bigots are cowards, anyway.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

170. Good call!

Him: "So nyah! You can't regulate meee!"

Little weasel.

[The Magistrate]

162. A Modest Proposal, Sir

Surely no immunity to criminal law adheres to a judge, at any level.

Should, say, Clarence Thomas be caught taking a bribe, or filing a false statement sworn to under penalty of perjury, indictment, arrest, trial, even imprisonment could result. This would not remove him from office, he would remain a Justice, but the logistics of participation from prison would be interesting.

A law passed by Congress and signed by the Executive directing an ethical standard be adhered to by judges, with criminal penalties for violation, surely ought to be attainable. The ethics standards envisioned proscribe self-dealing (non-recusal when a jurist has pecuniary or evident political interests in the outcome of a case), and apparent bribery (the taking of gifts from persons with business before the court). Opposition to such a law would be most amusing, as it could only be couched as a defense or minimization of things everyone agrees are corrupt. Squeals from Alito on the subject would be rum fun indeed....

[Blue Owl]

168. Fuck that corrupt POS