General Discussion

The Magistrate

(96,043 posts)

162. A Modest Proposal, Sir

Sat Jul 29, 2023, 05:53 AM

Jul 2023

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....

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:

Samuel Alito Warns Congress to Back Off [View all] RandySF Jul 2023 OP

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