788

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito no doubt intended to shock the political world when he told interviewers for the Wall Street Journal that “No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

Many observers dismissed his comment out of hand, noting the express language in Article III, establishing the court’s jurisdiction under “such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

But Alito wasn’t bluffing. His recently issued statement, declining to recuse himself in a controversial case, was issued without a single citation or reference to the controlling federal statute. Nor did he mention or adhere to the test for recusal that other justices have acknowledged in similar circumstances. It was as though he declared himself above the law.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 197 points 1 year ago

No part of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power of judicial review either. The court created that power out of nothing. If you wanna get pissy, Alito.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 78 points 1 year ago

Or sovereign immunity, absolute immunity and qualified immunity. They're just shit the court made up.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 46 points 1 year ago

He seems to think he's above the Constitution. Probably thinks he's Judge Dredd.

[-] 018118055@sopuli.xyz 15 points 1 year ago

To the iso-cubes with them

[-] FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I don't know why but I can't picture Alito in a full suite of armour with helmet and sidegun and all... the image I have of him with such a loadout on himself is that of a frail, weak, elderly man blabbering about his authority on people's life...

Wait, that's how I would see more or less anyone of that sort nowadays.

Maybe American institutions nedd a bit of a refresher

[-] Nahvi@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

I can't tell you how happy I am to see someone point this out here.

As if the ridiculous set of laws we have weren't bloated enough already, the nearly bottomless stack of court cases that modify them all and stack on each other make it impossible to have a fair trial.

[-] DemBoSain@midwest.social 8 points 1 year ago

It's telling that the people who want to eliminate the Executive Departments because they don't have Constitutional authority to create laws have been silent on Judicial Review.

[-] Nahvi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Agreed. Personally, I think it is because we don't bother to really teach the Constitution in schools. We summarize the Bill of Rights, read the first line or to of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and then pretend students understand it.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

And he always wants to get pissy.

[-] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

Regardless, the constitution very clearly does have language establishing that Congress can regulate the SC. Alito should be embarrassed to be spewing such baldfaced and easily disproved bullshit, but here we are

[-] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I made the same point elsewhere in this thread... But in fairness, the Constitution gives them final judicial appeal power (pretty much word-for-word).

It's an interestingly thin line that their judicial decision about any dispute is binding. It's clear they have judicial decision about any dispute of fact. From that, it seems obvious in retrospect that would give them final appeal power on any dispute of law as well. Ironically, that they aren't the final decisionmaker on State Law seems the oddity based upon the wording of their mandate.

That's the point of a judiciary, sadly. If two parties disagree on something relevant, we're supposed to have a neutral arbitration about which party is correct. One party says "the Constitution does not allow abortions" and the other party says "that's not how it looks to me". Lacking congressional action, there's already relevant law one way or the other and people are disagreeing on which way the law goes. In an ideal world, a "free" country should err any ambiguity on the side of individual freedom, but even then there's a disagreement on whether a fetus could legally be seen as an individual.

I think the problem with Marbury is that nobody saw exactly how broken the idea of having one authority to decide "who decides what is true when two parties disagree on the facts?" could extend. As the US court is a Common Law court, I wonder how much of that comes from European judicial style anyway.

[-] mrpants@midwest.social 0 points 1 year ago

Wow what a stupid misunderstanding you've spent so many paragraphs elucidating on.

[-] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not exactly sure why you had to give that useless reply, but have a nice life.

EDIT: Also if 4 paragraphs is "so many", you might need to retake 4th grade :)

this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
788 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19241 readers
1719 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS