Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Samuel Alito Warns Congress to Back Off [View all]Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)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.
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
171 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The 9th and 10th Amendments ovelap and both delegate power to the people/states...
brush
Jul 2023
#69
The wording in the constitution does not suggest or state what you are claiming
ColinC
Jul 2023
#141
The issue is about "regulation" under the exceptions outside of appellate jurisdiction.
ColinC
Jul 2023
#151
No provision in the Constitution prohibits them from regulating the Supreme Court.
Renew Deal
Jul 2023
#5
Not necessarily, see the 'Elastic Clause'... Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the US Constitution,
Celerity
Jul 2023
#46
Right off the bat, Congress (Senate) chooses (approves) Justices & determines number on bench
Bernardo de La Paz
Jul 2023
#6
Congress should pass a law requiring the SC to comply with existing federal court ethics rules.
patphil
Jul 2023
#9
There's no provision in the Constitution that says the courts have judicial review either.
Scrivener7
Jul 2023
#11
How do you think the court would rule if congress passed a law barring judicial review?
onenote
Jul 2023
#30
And? He says there is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress can regulate the court.
Scrivener7
Jul 2023
#40
My point, of course, is the the SCOTUS will decide if ethics legislation is constitutional.
onenote
Jul 2023
#53
Because Alito is claiming that Congress has no power at all to regulate the court,
NYC Liberal
Jul 2023
#157
After I got over the blind rage at Dobbs, a thought occurred to me: "Really? You're going to
Scrivener7
Jul 2023
#52
What is the relevance of that fact other than how it relates to Congress's power to regulate SCOTUS?
onenote
Jul 2023
#62
no more lifetime appointments for anyone period . dont bite the hand that feeds u.
AllaN01Bear
Jul 2023
#36
This is how a part of my theory of the case for the breakup of the Union of the States works.
Celerity
Jul 2023
#56
Absolutely agree that 250 years of slavery was a foundational evil ingredient in the karmic stew
Celerity
Jul 2023
#87
'they could go after gun owners/take them in the middle of the night too a federal detention center'
Celerity
Jul 2023
#116
what did trump do in Portland in 2020? federal troops detaining citizens?
reymega life
Jul 2023
#118
he sent out federal troops to detain the George Floyd protesters and the secret police.
reymega life
Jul 2023
#121
the feds are NOT going to round up gun owners, that is a RW conspiracy theory
Celerity
Jul 2023
#122
don't think they can't because look at how innocent Japanese Americans who didn't bomb us.
reymega life
Jul 2023
#126
125,284 (or so) were put into the Japanese internment camps (shame!) many of them women and
Celerity
Jul 2023
#130
Wasn't the FDR internment of Japanese Americans OK'd by congress and the courts?
MichMan
Jul 2023
#96
If Ralph Nader focused on consumers and didn't run for President, this fuck stick wouldn't
LW1977
Jul 2023
#59
The better solution in ky view would be to add four new justices. Unfortunately, Manchin and
Lonestarblue
Jul 2023
#89
Sam Alito should be worried about being impeached and convicted for taking bribes.
NNadir
Jul 2023
#120
said no one on the last day of school....great timing, sammy. Congress is gone for the summer.
lindysalsagal
Jul 2023
#161