Expand and term-limit SCOTUS. Why does a branch of the government operate this way?
There’s merit to the idea that a branch of government shouldn’t be as affected by what the current administration happens to be. In practice, it’s been republicans throwing piss baby fits to delay any democratic candidates until a republican administration, but the initial intent wasn’t as flawed.
Branches of government should be affected by elections. That's the ultimate decider in a democracy. Voters have a right to elect the stupid party. It's the responsibility of better people to do better in elections.
Also, the Constitution says the Supreme Court clearly is created by Congress. So Alito is not even being an "originalist" here. The Constitution doesn't even say that the Supreme Court can decide laws are unconstitutional. Isn't that Marbury v. Madison or something? The Supreme Court just decided they could do that.
Lying ass "originalists".
Yep. The reality of what all of us were taught in US History and Civics classes is very different from the reality and has been since we learned about it.
It's much harder to keep people in line when it's all run on house of cards in good faith lol.
The Supreme Court has always been bad except for a brief period of a few decades after FDR threatened it with packing.
If Alito is the originalist he says he is he should be against judicial review.
He's only an originalist when it benefits his warped world view.
“Originalism” has as much to do with original intent as Republicans do with the belief in an actual republic.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the sponsor of a bill to reform Supreme Court ethics standards and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also shared on social media that the Journal author of the interview with Alito is the lawyer for Leonard Leo, a prominent conservative legal activist who reportedly organized a fishing trip to Alaska that Alito attended alongside Paul Singer, a hedge fund manager whose plane they took.
“The lawyer who ‘wrote’ this is also the lawyer blocking our investigation into Leonard Leo’s Supreme Court freebies,” Whitehouse tweeted. “Shows how small and shallow the pool of operatives is around this captured Court — same folks keep popping up wearing new hats.”
Necessary and proper clause:
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
Under this clause congressional power encompasses all implied and incidental powers that are "conducive" to the "beneficial exercise" of any enumerated power. This is established by the SCOTUS in 17 US 316 McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). This includes any power enumerated in Article III of the US Constitution which is what establishes the third branch of Government, the Judicial branch.
Alito is just trying to play semantics with the term "regulation". In that "regulation" has a formal understanding of deriving from rule making and not legislating. But no member of Congress is pitching that we need some executive or legislative office extending a regulatory power over the court. Congress wishes to establish by fiat a code of conduct that the Justices must abide by.
And by the exact same clause in the Constitution, Congress has the right to open investigations into anything that they may legislate upon, including this.
The biggest question is can Congress compel the Justices to divulge any information. And the answer is something we've really been needing ANYWAY. We have laws to properly identify crime. We need either Congressional rules or actual laws, that indicate what's an impeachable offense. Congress has the ability to pass a law that if a judge doesn't come clean about their dealings, that the Judge is to face an automatic impeachment vote.
That's the part where Congress gets wishy washy on it. Because if a Judge isn't coming clean about their dealings and we have such a law, suddenly all the members of Congress have to go on the record for "do I approve of underhanded dealings?" But YES, Congress absolutely has the power to "regulate" the Justices. The Founders absolutely intended for Congress (for better or worse) to be the branch that's supposed to keep all the other branches from being corrupt, and it's up to the voters to keep Congress from being corrupt. That's how we made this form of Government.
All government needs checks and balances.
Oh yeah. The constitution totally does not make it clear that the legislature has the ultimate authority after the states and people and that the congress is not the higher house. im not doing the /s oh wait. doh.
Anyone told Alito his court has no legitimacy?
As if he would care. They're flaunting their illegitimacy right out in the open. Thomas has been for years, it's just taken a while for people to notice and call attention to it.
They will balk over Alito's statement, but my money is on them not having the balls to do anything about it. Once again, Democrat lawmakers are going to prove that they are just a bunch of cowards who won't follow-through and do anything about this. They prove they are doormats and because of that Republicans have been stepping all over them for decades now.
Expand and term-limit SCOTUS. Why does a branch of the government operate this way?
There’s merit to the idea that a branch of government shouldn’t be as affected by what the current administration happens to be. In practice, it’s been republicans throwing piss baby fits to delay any democratic candidates until a republican administration, but the initial intent wasn’t as flawed.
Branches of government should be affected by elections. That's the ultimate decider in a democracy. Voters have a right to elect the stupid party. It's the responsibility of better people to do better in elections.
Also, the Constitution says the Supreme Court clearly is created by Congress. So Alito is not even being an "originalist" here. The Constitution doesn't even say that the Supreme Court can decide laws are unconstitutional. Isn't that Marbury v. Madison or something? The Supreme Court just decided they could do that.
Lying ass "originalists".
Yep. The reality of what all of us were taught in US History and Civics classes is very different from the reality and has been since we learned about it.
It's much harder to keep people in line when it's all run on house of cards in good faith lol.
The Supreme Court has always been bad except for a brief period of a few decades after FDR threatened it with packing.
Good. Now they need to do something about it.
Alito's trolling because he knows Democrats do not presently have the votes to change a single thing about the Supreme Court
If Alito is the originalist he says he is he should be against judicial review.
He's only an originalist when it benefits his warped world view.
“Originalism” has as much to do with original intent as Republicans do with the belief in an actual republic.
Necessary and proper clause:
— Article I Section 8 Clause 18 US Constitution
Under this clause congressional power encompasses all implied and incidental powers that are "conducive" to the "beneficial exercise" of any enumerated power. This is established by the SCOTUS in 17 US 316 McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). This includes any power enumerated in Article III of the US Constitution which is what establishes the third branch of Government, the Judicial branch.
Alito is just trying to play semantics with the term "regulation". In that "regulation" has a formal understanding of deriving from rule making and not legislating. But no member of Congress is pitching that we need some executive or legislative office extending a regulatory power over the court. Congress wishes to establish by fiat a code of conduct that the Justices must abide by.
And by the exact same clause in the Constitution, Congress has the right to open investigations into anything that they may legislate upon, including this.
The biggest question is can Congress compel the Justices to divulge any information. And the answer is something we've really been needing ANYWAY. We have laws to properly identify crime. We need either Congressional rules or actual laws, that indicate what's an impeachable offense. Congress has the ability to pass a law that if a judge doesn't come clean about their dealings, that the Judge is to face an automatic impeachment vote.
That's the part where Congress gets wishy washy on it. Because if a Judge isn't coming clean about their dealings and we have such a law, suddenly all the members of Congress have to go on the record for "do I approve of underhanded dealings?" But YES, Congress absolutely has the power to "regulate" the Justices. The Founders absolutely intended for Congress (for better or worse) to be the branch that's supposed to keep all the other branches from being corrupt, and it's up to the voters to keep Congress from being corrupt. That's how we made this form of Government.
All government needs checks and balances.
Oh yeah. The constitution totally does not make it clear that the legislature has the ultimate authority after the states and people and that the congress is not the higher house. im not doing the /s oh wait. doh.
Anyone told Alito his court has no legitimacy?
As if he would care. They're flaunting their illegitimacy right out in the open. Thomas has been for years, it's just taken a while for people to notice and call attention to it.
They will balk over Alito's statement, but my money is on them not having the balls to do anything about it. Once again, Democrat lawmakers are going to prove that they are just a bunch of cowards who won't follow-through and do anything about this. They prove they are doormats and because of that Republicans have been stepping all over them for decades now.