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
 

Beastly Boy

(13,283 posts)
125. There is a good case to be made with Article 3 Section 1
Fri Jul 28, 2023, 06:39 PM
Jul 2023
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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

BULL SHIT SAM! leftieNanner Jul 2023 #1
Uh, where is that authority listed in the Constitution? Zeitghost Jul 2023 #17
The 9th and 10th Amendments ovelap and both delegate power to the people/states... brush Jul 2023 #69
I think you are correct, brush SCantiGOP Jul 2023 #74
Thanks, Brush. n/t intheflow Jul 2023 #83
That . . . is not what those amendments mean Sympthsical Jul 2023 #146
Thanks for your interpretation. I'm pretty sure many others disagree. brush Jul 2023 #152
Um here: Glaisne Jul 2023 #98
That is regarding jurisdiction Zeitghost Jul 2023 #123
Incorrect ColinC Jul 2023 #131
It definitely clear Zeitghost Jul 2023 #134
The Supreme Court has the power to reverse or modify lower court decisions ColinC Jul 2023 #137
I understand what appellate jurisdiction is Zeitghost Jul 2023 #139
The wording in the constitution does not suggest or state what you are claiming ColinC Jul 2023 #141
The issue is about ethics not appellate jurisdiction. former9thward Jul 2023 #147
The issue is about "regulation" under the exceptions outside of appellate jurisdiction. ColinC Jul 2023 #151
Well your constitution is different than mine. former9thward Jul 2023 #153
Really? Where is that in the Constitution? yardwork Jul 2023 #51
See post 69. The answer is the 10th amendment ColinC Jul 2023 #99
And it's been pointed out Zeitghost Jul 2023 #124
Ummm... what makes you think "jurisdiction" only means impeachment? ColinC Jul 2023 #127
It's not jurisdiction over judges Zeitghost Jul 2023 #128
No ColinC Jul 2023 #129
That statement Zeitghost Jul 2023 #133
I don't think this is true ColinC Jul 2023 #135
Checks and balances! Sanity Claws Jul 2023 #2
Boom! There you go, Samuel. Suck on it. EarnestPutz Jul 2023 #3
---and pays your checks. 3Hotdogs Jul 2023 #18
How? onenote Jul 2023 #26
Judges get paid, says nothing about staff bottomofthehill Jul 2023 #60
The power of the purse resides with the congress. bottomofthehill Jul 2023 #61
And can we get back to considering actions that are remotely likely? onenote Jul 2023 #68
If they refuse to pass an ethics package, I believe they could bottomofthehill Jul 2023 #140
Here is what I want to know? edisdead Jul 2023 #158
During good behavior Freethinker65 Jul 2023 #71
Good behaviour? tavernier Jul 2023 #73
Checks and Balances must mean the conservative justices bank accounts. chowder66 Jul 2023 #102
You know what else Congress can do? Impeach Court justices! Grins Jul 2023 #115
Who cares what this partisan hack thinks? LetMyPeopleVote Jul 2023 #4
No provision in the Constitution prohibits them from regulating the Supreme Court. Renew Deal Jul 2023 #5
That's not how the Constitution works Zeitghost Jul 2023 #19
Not necessarily, see the 'Elastic Clause'... Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the US Constitution, Celerity Jul 2023 #46
There's a very good point! lastlib Jul 2023 #90
It doesn't work that way Sympthsical Jul 2023 #148
That is literally the opposite of our Constitution Sympthsical Jul 2023 #149
Right off the bat, Congress (Senate) chooses (approves) Justices & determines number on bench Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2023 #6
They also have the power to impeach. IL Dem Jul 2023 #24
Excellent point. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2023 #25
No, it "implies" the power to impeach. Nothing more. onenote Jul 2023 #27
With no clear standards at ALL... druidity33 Jul 2023 #142
The same lines that a president can be impeached for. onenote Jul 2023 #156
Is he waiting to be crowned emperor? DBoon Jul 2023 #7
Absolute power corrupts absolutely MadameButterfly Jul 2023 #32
Yep.. and he's trying. mountain grammy Jul 2023 #110
Here's an idea Sam,... magicarpet Jul 2023 #8
I was about to post something similar. :) Dave Bowman Jul 2023 #58
Congress should pass a law requiring the SC to comply with existing federal court ethics rules. patphil Jul 2023 #9
It would be 9-0 Zeitghost Jul 2023 #20
Alito is a terrible person. madaboutharry Jul 2023 #10
Well, maybe it does MadameButterfly Jul 2023 #35
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
Why do you ask? Scrivener7 Jul 2023 #34
Because that is more closely analogous to congress regulating SCOTUS onenote Jul 2023 #37
And? He says there is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress can regulate the court. Scrivener7 Jul 2023 #40
Correct. Celerity Jul 2023 #47
My point, of course, is the the SCOTUS will decide if ethics legislation is constitutional. onenote Jul 2023 #53
Not sure why you are making an argument about this. I stated a fact. Scrivener7 Jul 2023 #57
Congress has the power to strip their appellate jurisdiction. NYC Liberal Jul 2023 #100
Yes, that is expressly mentioned in the Constitution. onenote Jul 2023 #111
Because Alito is claiming that Congress has no power at all to regulate the court, NYC Liberal Jul 2023 #157
Serious question: if Congress's power is as broad as you suggest onenote Jul 2023 #164
Exactly edhopper Jul 2023 #43
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
Oh, lord. Have a nice night. Scrivener7 Jul 2023 #66
It's only 4 pm where I am, but you have a nice night too. onenote Jul 2023 #70
Uh... what? EarlG Jul 2023 #12
Good point. Baitball Blogger Jul 2023 #31
Hmmm -- Congress reduce SC down to 1 SC Justice? LiberalFighter Jul 2023 #44
Mockalito should read the U.S. Constitution someday... Hermit-The-Prog Jul 2023 #13
They can regulate the court's jurisdiction. Not the Justices. onenote Jul 2023 #28
Where do you see that in the Constitution? Hermit-The-Prog Jul 2023 #38
There is a good case to be made with Article 3 Section 1 Beastly Boy Jul 2023 #125
I think your answer is the best one here. scipan Jul 2023 #165
I see the constitution saying they can regulate jurisdiction. onenote Jul 2023 #50
I see "AND under such regulations as the Congress shall make" ... Hermit-The-Prog Jul 2023 #159
in context...regulations about jurisdiction. onenote Jul 2023 #163
Sounds a little... 2naSalit Jul 2023 #14
100% squirmy. MontanaMama Jul 2023 #91
Definitely! 2naSalit Jul 2023 #155
. Effete Snob Jul 2023 #15
The "Unitary Judiciary"? The Unmitigated Gall Jul 2023 #16
Need to knock these smug assholes MOMFUDSKI Jul 2023 #21
Despicable liar. dalton99a Jul 2023 #22
Fuck you, Alito, you partisan hack NewHendoLib Jul 2023 #23
Wah.. poor little thing thinks he's a god. Cha Jul 2023 #29
uh, Sammy, they can regulate your ass right off of it with enough votes prodigitalson Jul 2023 #33
no more lifetime appointments for anyone period . dont bite the hand that feeds u. AllaN01Bear Jul 2023 #36
I'm getting to the point Elessar Zappa Jul 2023 #39
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
I am horrified to agree entirely. Scrivener7 Jul 2023 #85
Absolutely agree that 250 years of slavery was a foundational evil ingredient in the karmic stew Celerity Jul 2023 #87
Post removed Post removed Jul 2023 #109
'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
I see the threat of one day they'll round up people they don't like reymega life Jul 2023 #93
Wasn't the FDR internment of Japanese Americans OK'd by congress and the courts? MichMan Jul 2023 #96
the next republican might use this towards the lgbtq people reymega life Jul 2023 #105
Well, they did it before. plimsoll Jul 2023 #112
What you wrote is definitely possible. Elessar Zappa Jul 2023 #114
There is precedent for a president ignoring a Supreme Court ruling. wnylib Jul 2023 #67
Yeah, it's not something I say lightly. Elessar Zappa Jul 2023 #113
Not a tough decision for me, but I do understand wnylib Jul 2023 #119
Does he know where his paycheck comes from? C_U_L8R Jul 2023 #41
Swell. Mr.Bill Jul 2023 #42
Go screw yourself, Mister Alito. This is America, & you are not a medieval Pope Hekate Jul 2023 #45
Sam the Sham Alito continues his assault on America. Hassler Jul 2023 #48
Ted Lieu tells him off New Breed Leader Jul 2023 #49
I just love a righteous smackdown! Mr. Evil Jul 2023 #64
Indeed! Duppers Jul 2023 #145
Instead of adding Justices let's remove two positions. Delmette2.0 Jul 2023 #97
+1 dalton99a Jul 2023 #101
As if following the constitution mattered swong19104 Jul 2023 #54
Congress has power AncientOfDays Jul 2023 #55
If Ralph Nader focused on consumers and didn't run for President, this fuck stick wouldn't LW1977 Jul 2023 #59
Ted Lieu says otherwise tenderfoot Jul 2023 #63
Oh. Really? Judiciary Act of 1789 bucolic_frolic Jul 2023 #65
Yup. It's not in the Constitution? Hold my beer. Scrivener7 Jul 2023 #80
Better title: Alito has a hissy fit over Congress wanting to make him behave. ananda Jul 2023 #72
Back off Sammy boy. You're not God. milestogo Jul 2023 #75
I think the Constitution disagrees with him In It to Win It Jul 2023 #76
Acturally, it does, Your Eminence Warpy Jul 2023 #77
No one is above the law? 3825-87867 Jul 2023 #78
They can always be impeached, so they most certainly can be removed MichMan Jul 2023 #86
The basic foundation for our Constitution SCantiGOP Jul 2023 #79
Hmmm. Food for thought. scipan Jul 2023 #166
Right off the bat. Snackshack Jul 2023 #81
Hey Supreme Court Asswipe. AKA "Justice" DENVERPOPS Jul 2023 #82
Who in hell are you Samuel to judge anyone or anything? Emile Jul 2023 #84
The assumption is that justices can be removed only by impeachment lonely bird Jul 2023 #88
The better solution in ky view would be to add four new justices. Unfortunately, Manchin and Lonestarblue Jul 2023 #89
Commit a crime...go to jail! 3825-87867 Jul 2023 #92
sammy should quit wasting oxygen. niyad Jul 2023 #94
One more thing on the huge pile of shit Sam doesn't know. dchill Jul 2023 #95
All it takes is a constitutional amendment or an impeachment vlyons Jul 2023 #103
If they decide they can't be held to ethics Quanto Magnus Jul 2023 #104
Sigh. At the end of the second paragraph of Article III, Section 2. haele Jul 2023 #106
Yes. In order to carry out their oversight duty. Nt scipan Jul 2023 #167
With all due respect, fuck him. Joinfortmill Jul 2023 #107
Well Chief Justice Alito has spoken moniss Jul 2023 #108
Everything he says and does is fishy diva77 Jul 2023 #117
Sam Alito should be worried about being impeached and convicted for taking bribes. NNadir Jul 2023 #120
Constitution very plainly states the opposite ColinC Jul 2023 #132
"Get Down" mahatmakanejeeves Jul 2023 #136
Uh, no EnergizedLib Jul 2023 #138
Get these deranged cultists off the court NOW! Initech Jul 2023 #143
Conservative all believe in the Unitary Government ... aggiesal Jul 2023 #144
Not naming names but there's a lot of this in the thread. BannonsLiver Jul 2023 #150
What does MorbidButterflyTat Jul 2023 #169
Whatever your imagination says it means. BannonsLiver Jul 2023 #171
They can add Justices anytime they wish. kentuck Jul 2023 #154
Fuck that. He knows damn well that court is corrupt AF ecstatic Jul 2023 #160
said no one on the last day of school....great timing, sammy. Congress is gone for the summer. lindysalsagal Jul 2023 #161
Good call! MorbidButterflyTat Jul 2023 #170
A Modest Proposal, Sir The Magistrate Jul 2023 #162
Fuck that corrupt POS Blue Owl Jul 2023 #168
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Samuel Alito Warns Congre...»Reply #125