•

Justice Alito says Congress lacks the power to impose an ethics code on the Supreme Court

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-ethics-alito-d98b0edf1340ff3ed66b345c5ddcf0dc

Justice Samuel Alito says Congress lacks the power to impose a code of ethics on the Supreme Court. He becomes the first member of the court to take a public stand against proposals in Congress to toughen ethics rules for the justices.

Justice Alito says Congress lacks the power to impose an ethics code on the Supreme Court

101 comments

Rusticus

•

Think about this for a second: a Supreme Court justice thinks NO ONE has the power to hold them to an ethical standard. I can think of no better reason to hold them to an ethical standard than that.

candyman337

•

Yeah really, if a justice literally says checks and balances don't exist, maybe we should listen and respond accordingly. Also maybe we should fire him, and most of the others.

Eldritch

•

Exactly. Checks and balances motherfucker! We need to swing the scales back into balance so hard. He and Thomas are launched into orbit and never heard from again. Run over by an orbiting Tesla.

Erisrand

•

Congress already has a check against SCOTUS, impeachment. Alito is actually probably right here. It would take a constitutional amendment to create a new lever for congress to pull.

Which is complete ass because it will never happen. That document is a failure in the 21st century and is holding us back.

Gray

•

This is genuinely quite a scary belief coming from a SCOTUS justice. In effect he is saying that the SCOTUS is the only institution in the US that is completely untouchable by legislation. That elevates the SCOTUS to a level beyond any other government position. Effectively our benevolent overlords. Given how low of approval ratings that the SCOTUS has, their recent series of ideological activist decisions, and the fact that they aren't even elected positions, I find myself increasingly in support of a fundamental redefinition of the SCOTUS as we know it. I don't see why we shouldn't stack the SCOTUS when they've fundamentally abandoned their duty to any level of fairness or responsibility for the citizens of the US.

baldingpudenda

•

Unelected, serve for life, say they are untouchable and can do as they please. How is that not a king?

Anticorp

•

Any position that is for life is too long, especially an appointed one with almost zero mechanisms for removal.

outrageousmatter

•

Almost, impeachment is one big one allowed. I believe only one justice was impeached but I bet the issue is, you can't get republicans to agree as then democrats can put one in. Which is a terrible injustice so they'll make sure to vote down anything to make sure the supreme court stays right winged.

xuxebiko

•

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

elscallr

•

Except the one mechanism for removal. You don't need more than one.

xuxebiko

•

because they're not murdered by their successor?

Zron

•

Not murdered by their successor so far

stown

•

Did you ever hear the tragedy of Ruth Ginsburg the Wise?

xuxebiko

•

too soon

Still miss her :(

McNasty

•

I still blame her for Barrett.

Nepoleon

•

Because Supreme Court cant create their own laws directly, missing legislature power, having no direct power to control national finances/budgets, a main power of a country and they dont have control of the executives including army and police. All their power depends on laws made by legislature and constitution.

Thats how the three pillars of power works in all democracies. Just because your legislature or executives or even forefathers who made the constitution fucked up, doesnt mean the supreme court is an absolute monarchy. The biggest piece of shit mistake you made was having a two party system. In other countries, supreme courts arent as binary partisan. Coalitions of Partys vote way more reasonable judges to supreme courts

blanketswithsmallpox

•

Considering the Supreme Court's entire schtick is the arbitrary definition of a word's meaning by the sitting justices... I'd disagree.

They can literally change the definition of a law at a whim. It doesn't really matter at that point what the law even says unless it's lawyered up specifically to remove their powers. Even then, don't expect the conservative justices to go down without a fight lol.

Wrench

•

The problem is that they blatantly collude with the other two pillars. They can't make their own laws, but they can collude with the others to bring a case to their doorstep to make a ruling not based on precedent or good faith interpretation of the law.

They effectively can create whatever laws they want, just with extra steps.

Anticorp

•

George Washington warned against bicameralism, but they ignored him. Our Supreme Court positions have always been non-partisan until recent history.

vacuumflower

•

Thats how the three pillars of power works in all democracies.

And the amount of people willing to dismantle this particular one means it does serve its purpose well.

vacuumflower

•

The "unelected" part is on purpose, though I'd prefer sortition.

The biggest group of voters may decide who controls the government, but they shouldn't decide who takes places in the supreme court. At least not in the same mechanism.

Well, unless you can make it a 95% "in favor" vote, of course. Then, I guess, there'd be no hope anyway.

FlyingSquid

•

They think they're the equivalent of the mullahs of Iran apparently.

Gray

•

It's funny you say that because that's exactly where my mind went too. A system with elections, but a class of officials that exist outside of that system and that can overrule it and can't be touched by it.

whofearsthenight

•

It's also an incredibly dangerous thing for a justice to say because it just begs for a constitutional test. The court is probably best known for the ability to decide whether a law is constitutional, or judicial review, which is not spelled out in the constitution. So let's say congress passes a law concerning ethics on the court and the court says "that's not constitutional" and congress just goes "neither is judicial review." Pure chaos. The courts power mostly is like that episode of The Office where Pam says she's the office manager and everyone just goes along with it. The court says it has judicial review authority, and everyone just went "ok."

moosepuggle

•

I like the idea of terms being twenty years and judges being selected randomly from existing sitting judges in lower courts. Takes all the air out of the balloon around Congress fighting over approving SCOTUS judges.

Gray

•

I kind of like that idea, except I think it's less likely to create a non-partisan court and more likely to create a randomly partisan court. Like, odds are that five of the justices would still have a partisan lean. Is that fair to the American people? Also, when Republicans block a president from having their judicial nominations confirmed, then it becomes even more likely for conservative justices to make it to the SCOTUS. Same for if Dems blocked. It would incentize obstruction.

I've felt that we should simply have the SCOTUS be elected like we do in many states. Why shouldn't the people have a direct say in who makes the greatest decisions about our constitution? It was one thing when the court was ostensibly non-partisan, but at this point if it's going to be partisan either way, we should just make it elected.

Alternatively, we could bake the partisanship into the court. Make the court have an even number, then reward an equal number of justices to the major parties (parties receiving more than x% of the vote in presidential elections or something like that). If libertarians or greens ever get more popular, we can have the court autoadjust to split between more parties. That's my hairbrained idea that would probably be too messy to be worth it.

reddig33

•

Alito is wrong. Just like he’s wrong about a lot of other things.

mindbleach

•

State judiciary: powerless versus their congress.

Federal judiciary: unquestionable.

Get the fuck out of our government, you miserable bastard.

mookulator

•

Expand and term-limit SCOTUS. This system is ridiculous

Lem453

•

Instead of term limits, the rule should be to replace the longest serving justice every 4 years. On average, every president will therefore replace one justice each term barring any accidents.

ThunderingJerboa

•

I mean term limits aren't going to fix the problem. They arguably may make them far worse. It then just becomes a job of tactically making sure you secure the election of the executive branch and senate. With senate being the most important since if senate sits on their hands you sort of get a "Scalia situation". Where there will just be an empty seat until you get executive and senate to agree on a candidate.

mookulator

•

Surely there is a way to effectively fill vacant government positions.

ThunderingJerboa

•

Yes but no. I'll elaborate, there is a concept called a recess appointment where if senate is on recess (which they do twice a year) where the president can fill in a temp until the end of their next session however National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning (2014) basically has allowed the concept of pro forma session as a valid way to disrupt a recess. So what is a pro forma session it is basically a session of senate where the President Pro Tempore (Longest running senator who handles procedure) delegates their job to a singular senator who then calls the session to an end and repeat this every 3 days and bing bang boom. You have a senate who is not on recess but is taking a break

So in a 5-4 vote, they dictated

“for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.”

So while there is technically a system to fill vacant government positions, it has been basically loopholed out of the equation since 2014.

McNasty

•

Term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment.

Laughable with a republican congress.

heavyboots

•

Sure sure, and by that logic, I also submit that the Supreme Court lacks the power to impose their own ethics on an entire gender.

MicroWave

•

Justice Samuel Alito says Congress lacks the power to impose a code of ethics on the Supreme Court, making him the first member of the court to take a public stand against proposals in Congress to toughen ethics rules for justices in response to increased scrutiny of their activities beyond the bench.

Plaid_Kaleidoscope

•

Then who exactly is supposed to be the check on the courts? Is that not precisely the domain of the legislative wing of govt? That's like some basic civics shit.

Telodzrum

•

It's bullshit, but he's probably not wrong. The Legislature's checks on the Judiciary are primarily:

Funding
Congress has the authority to create all courts below SCOTUS and provide for those courts' jurisdiction

TerryMathews

•

If Congress lacks the authority to regulate the Supreme Court, then certainly they also lack the authority to fund the Supreme Court...

rifugee

•

Fortunately, congress does have the power to impeach and remove a supreme court judge.

FlashMobOfOne

•

It would be, if we elected people who cared more about doing good than they do about increasing their own fortunes.

lolcatnip

•

In theory. In practice getting 2/3 of the Senate to agree on anything is pretty much impossible.

FlashMobOfOne

•

They're all multi-millionaires, and care much, much more about increasing their wealth than they do about doing meaningful good. Remember when we found out both Republican and Democratic senators exploited their classified COVID briefings to make money on stocks?

Telodzrum

•

bOtH sIdEs!

FlashMobOfOne

•

Both sides literally did that, yes.

Thteven

•

Can we start a prayer drive for this guy to die in his sleep?

BaroqueInMind

•

Nah, that's too peaceful and hippie. Let's pray for Old Testament God and their unimaginable non-eucludean angels who have thousands of eyes and burning wheels and infinite wings with a baby fetus in the core with the absolute most fucked up horrific natural death possible.

vaultdweler13

•

Ill just ask Odin to release the wild hunt on this fuckface. Not quite eldritch but still fucking horrific.

Snapz

•

There's a key trick to evaluating statements by the republican justices... re-read anything they say from the lens of they are completely full of shit and have zero integrity.

These are not serious people. Don't discuss them as if they are. Tell your own representatives that they need to act on this LOUDLY or they will lose your vote.

HR_Pufnstuf

•

Well, as I see it, Mr. Alito... You can either have Congress do it, or you can have an angry mob do it. Which do you prefer?

HawlSera

•

I'll believe it when I see it, Americans are quite pacified.

Gradually_Adjusting

•

We're not as rowdy as we need to be, but you're not going to get the full picture from corporate media. They have a vested interest in downplaying or vilifying everything rad we do.

WarmSoda

•

The masses aren't going to rise up over the supreme court. It's too abstract and far away for most people in the crowd to care that much about.

They absolutely need to be brought down a few pegs though. Congress needs to take Alitos statement as a challenge.

HR_Pufnstuf

•

I'm not. :)

cybersandwich

•

I live near Alito. There was certainly concern that Americans aren't as pacified as you think--if the riot police and swat that staged near his house, after the Roe decision, was anything to go by.

Yearly1845

•

thefluffiest

•

Cheques and balances?

stown

•

chiquita bananas

Shotgun_Alice

•

I feel the supreme court is playing a game of fuck around and find out here. Hate to say it but supreme court ethics has pretty bipartisan support. These people are entrusted to be above that kind of behavior, but it's already been shown that every member of the court has something to hide. If they're not willing to self police themselves we will police them ourselves.

Snapz

•

I mean, you should probably walk that back a bit.

The liberal justices surely aren't vocal enough about the need for ethics oversight (likely because they've been threatened by other justices in the majority and told that if they stay aligned with the fascist judges on some of this that the judges will vote on the side of the actual merit of the cases for some of the "lesser" cases that come through the court".

There is no room for these blanket false equivalencies though.

Buddahriffic

•

Giving in to threats or agreeing to some kind of quid pro quo system would also be corruption. If some justices are threatening others, that should absolutely be exposed and supreme court justices are in one of the best positions to do that exposing.

Shotgun_Alice

•

Sorry but I think the whole of the supreme court is rotten to the core as it stands, and I think some ethics are in dire need. If you think the liberal justices aren't getting kickback, sweetheart deals, or vacations from wealthy billionaires, you're kidding yourself. They're going to push back on ethics because it might expose the true scale of the corruption in the supreme court. So you can give them a pass if you want, but the whole point of lifetime appointment was to rise above politics and currying favor, and as I see it in my life time the supreme Court has done little to improve people's lives, but corporations have benefited to a great deal. I don't think for a moment I think Congress is any better they're rotten too, but they at least have to report their gifts. Like I said the bear f****** minimum.

Djtecha

•

Show me where the liberal judges are getting kick backs please. Otherwise that's all just nonsense speculation to make them look as bad as the actual corrupt republican ones are.

Shotgun_Alice

•

Here I found an article that sums up my thoughts, but the liberals silence and even signing on with the conservatives saying that they don't need ethics makes them complacent in the act. This is the same argument about bad cops just one bad apple, but people never finish the saying, spoils the bunch. The bunch that sits on the supreme court are a rotten to the core and if you think they're not you're deluding yourself.

Djtecha

•

Idk if this points to them being complicit. But beyond that, there is a biiiiiig difference between staying silent and taking actual kickbacks. I do think there's no way in hell a government body can police itself on this though. And I think congress needs to rein this in. Sadly, I'm sure what we will see, and we are, is the republican body absolutely refusing to help push legislation forward to address this. I do think it's also healthy to have some skepticism towards anyone in the political theater. But let's be clear, roberts coming out today and saying that no one gets to tell SCOTUS what ethics to follow is a huggge red flag for what this court has become under justices placed there from underhanded tactics.

Snapz

•

A opinion piece from the hill... From Juan Williams, and with ZERO context provided to readers here that he's a devout fox news shill.

Cool weak propaganda attempt.

Telodzrum

•

supreme court ethics has pretty bipartisan support

Except, it absolutely does not.

spider

•

And remember, Alito and Thomas were nominated by the so-called "moderate" Bush family.

IHeartBadCode

•

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

— Article I Section 8 Clause 18 US Constitution

The Constitution indicates that Congress gets to set the laws that are necessary for proper execution of all the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

kingthrillgore

•

IF THIS ISN'T GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS

Alito basically admitted to conspiracy against the government

JTode

•

This is just... wow. The breathtaking arrogance of it.

It's not often these swine can actually get a visceral reaction from me anymore, but wow. Time to get back to work on that Novelty Giant Cigar Chopper I'm working on.

burningquestion

•

elscallr

•

If Congress wishes to change the direction of the Court they have the ability to do so by amending the Constitution.

what_was_not_said

•

The Constitution declares that the House has the sole power to impeach, and the Senate the power to try the case. It does not limit the scope of such impeachments. Alito is just as subject to impeachment as any other member of the Federal Government.

burningquestion

•

ShooBoo

•

The dude is out of control.

girlfreddy

•

@ShooBoo @MicroWave

... yet still in control of SCOTUS.

RagingRobot

•

This old man refuses to let go of his SCROTUS