580
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Moyer1666@lemmy.ml 256 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You're wrong Alito, Congress can definitely make rules and laws to regulate you. They have the explicit authority to do that.

"The court can be trusted to self-regulate"

That's bullshit. With your unethical bribes being accepted and the bullshit rulings you've been making have proven you're an incompetent corrupt court.

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world 159 points 10 months ago

It's right on the courts' info page

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices.

[-] flipht@kbin.social 55 points 10 months ago

I mean, these people haven't even read the laws they're supposed to be deciding cases on. You expect him to read his own website too? The privilege.

/s

[-] chaogomu@kbin.social 55 points 10 months ago

You used sarcasm. Samuel Alito might not have read actual law in years. He mostly writes about the current manufactured outrage from Fox News, and tries to shoehorn that into an opinion. He's gone off-topic a few times in recent years, trying to shove culture war bullshit into cases where they're only tangentially related.

It's called Fox News Brain. Your racist uncle and a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court both have it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 21 points 10 months ago

Pretty much all authority the Supreme Court has is power it has given itself. It's long overdue being reigned in.

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

Indeed, I posted this on another thread about the court

Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Smith Adams, September 11, 1804, "but the opinion [Marbury v Madison] which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

That had to do with size of the court.

Constitution says it's a lifetime appointment, though.

Can have all the rules you want, which the justices are free to ignore because the Constitution says it's a lifetime seat.

[-] mriguy@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

You just have to be creative. Pass a law saying holding a Supreme Court seat for more than 20 years is a capital crime.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] TheCraiggers@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

And president terms are 4 years. Doesn't stop impeachment though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] 001100010010@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

But will congress enforce the rules? By enforce, I mean using the power of Impeachment and voting to convict under said Article(s) of Impeachment. Otherwise, any rules are pointless. A president can only be prosecuted after leaving office, how do prosecute a sitting supreme court justice who serves for life? Even if you did, they'd still be a sitting justice that can rule from prison since criminal conviction =/= impeachment conviction, and I'd imagine the case could go up to the very court that he/she sit in, and it only takes 4 of their collegues plus their own vote to overturn their own conviction.

In this political climate, it's practically impossible to convict a justice under the impeachment procedure.

[-] Zron@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

An impeachment is not a criminal trial, the Supreme Court would have no authority to make a decision in an impeachment.

Impeachment is purely a political tool to remove nefarious actors from the government. So an impeached justice would have his spot on the bench taken away, and then would be a regular citizen who can face trial and imprisonment like any other.

If they decide to ignore that rule, it’s literally the job the of the president to have them arrested and brought before congress to face their impeachment.

I would hope if the court tried to play that hand, congress would actually start using their authority and install a new court, but I trust congress to have a spine as much as I trust my 102 year old neighbor to mow his lawn.

But don’t worry, that would be like the 3rd constitutional crisis we’ve had in 5 years. They’re getting kind of boring now anyway.

[-] bemenaker@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

The GOP would never give up their own. They proved that with Trump. Trump would have been impeached had McConnell not gone to Trump's lawyers and told them what they needed to say after the first day of the trial. The Senate left the first day with the mindset of he has to go. McConnell told Trump's lawyer that even most R Senators were going to impeach him unless the lawyer did exactly this.

[-] burntbutterbiscuits@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago

Would be interesting to see a sitting Supreme Court justice who has been impeached but not convicted.

[-] 001100010010@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 5 points 10 months ago

That is a great article! Thanks for linking it, especially with the archive link.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

They can, but they won’t.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 100 points 10 months ago

No balances, only cheques I suppose

[-] Mereo@lemmy.ca 11 points 10 months ago

Haha. Yes. Basically they want to stay kings and Queens.

[-] burntbutterbiscuits@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago

Cash rules everything around me, CREAM get the money

[-] Fisk400@lemmy.world 59 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

We the people made up the rules and we can change them in any way we want. If the supreme Court has some kind of magic that stops that they are free to deploy that but in the meantime we can assume that they are flesh bags like the rest of us.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

He means absent a Constitutional amendment. And he's correct.

Congress authority is limited to saying what type of cases the court can take and how many justices there are.

Constitution says they are lifetime appointments. Can't really attach rules to that. Even if they break the rules, they are still lifetime appointments.

Only way out is death, retirement, or impeachment. I think only one justice was ever impeached.

[-] ZombieTheZombieCat@lemm.ee 12 points 10 months ago

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the only thing the constitution says about it is "there shall be a supreme court."

Regardless, the constitution was created to be amended, and it's the states that vote on those. You know. That whole democracy thing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bemenaker@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Congress can impeach Alito and remove him from the bench. So, yes, they have some major muscle to flex. Unfortunately, the GOP is so corrupt, they wouldn't impeach Alito for for shooting a random stranger on 5th ave and having sex with their corpse., in broad daylight, on live TV.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

There's nothing that says we have to listen to their rulings. They can simply be ignored.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] cerevant@lemmy.world 54 points 10 months ago

Funny, the doctrine of judicial review doesn’t exist in the constitution either.

[-] mookulator@lemmy.world 47 points 10 months ago

Expand and term-limit SCOTUS. This system is ridiculous

[-] Matthew@programming.dev 46 points 10 months ago

Ah, so only two of the three branches of government are subject to checks and balances?

[-] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Well... yeah. Have you seen the shit those untouchable godkings have been getting away with?

[-] zerkrazus@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

In theory, a few of them should be impeached, tried, convicted, disbarred, removed, & jailed, since lying to Congress under oath is a federal offense I'm pretty sure.

[-] CannaVet@lemmy.world 39 points 10 months ago

"The court has investigated the court and found no wrongdoing on the part of the court"

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

“The court has investigated the court, and the majority of the court found no wrongdoing on ~~our~~ the courts part.”

[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago

The branch of government with lifetime appointment can't be regulated by anyone else?!? LOL

How convenient!

The only thing stopping that from happening now is that Democrats are too weak to push the issue.

[-] linearchaos@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago

I do believe they have entered Fuck Around and Find Out territory

[-] rambaroo@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

SCOTUS won't be able to do shit against a determined president. They're the most powerful branch now, but only one branch has direct access to an enforcement arm, and it isn't SCOTUS.

They better tread carefully. People are only going to become more extreme the more they continue dictating from the bench for the wealthy and corporations. They could be completely neutered as an institution.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

Okay, who pooped💩 on the sidewalk in front of his house?

[-] galaxies_collide@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago
[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

My dog would poop there every day

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

In that case, he should waive any protections he gets from congress' laws.

[-] mechoman444@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Well someone better regulate their silly asses cuz what they're doing now is throwing civil rights back to Jim crow.

[-] crocswithsocks@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Apparently the Supreme Court doesn't either.

[-] Arsenal4ever@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago
[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago

scotus rulings only apply to the underclasses, like democrats, black people, queer people and other communists.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

And some state legislators believe the Independent State Legislature interpretation of the Constitution.

He and they are wrong.

[-] 4kki@feddit.de 5 points 10 months ago

So the constitution gave SCOTUS the authority to regulate women's bodies?

[-] Zron@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

The court gave the court that authority.

When you think about it, the court itself has been unconstitutional since 1803 when they decided for themselves that they had the authority to decide what is and isn’t constitutional. Marbury V Madison is the case that “gave” the court the power of judicial review. A power that is not enumerated in the constitution whatsoever, and was entirely made up by the Supreme Court.

Judicial review is a bullshit system and should have been struck down with an act of congress immediately. Unfortunately, Americans have apparently always been lazy, and delegating constitutional questions to the court was seen as easier than making amendments all the time.

In short: sack the court and start again. Create a new entity for making constitutional interpretations, and make SCOTUS back into what it was supposed to be: the final court of appeals for the judicial system.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] nothingcorporate@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

And I insist that the supreme Court is illegitimate.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
580 points (97.5% liked)

politics

17851 readers
2841 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS