Politics

10180 readers

101 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

circularfish@beehaw.org

knokelmaat@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

212

Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court (thehill.com)

submitted 1 year ago by trashhalo@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Justice Samuel Alito said in an interview that Congress does not have the authority to regulate the Supreme Court, pushing back against Democratic efforts to mandate stronger ethics rules for the justices. Alito argued that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate the Supreme Court. While Chief Justice John Roberts has also questioned Congress's ability to act, he was not as definitive as Alito. Some Democrats rejected Alito's reasoning, arguing that the Supreme Court should be subject to checks and balances. The ethics push comes after recent revelations about undisclosed trips and other ethics issues involving several Supreme Court justices.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mister_monster@monero.town 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a very detail ignoring take on the matter but technically you're right.

[–] Dominic@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

For context:

Judicial review exists because it makes sense. The framers decided to bind the government with a Constitution, but never explicitly wrote up an enforcement mechanism. The judiciary already interprets laws, so they get to be the enforcement mechanism by default.

The framers also decided to write “during good behavior” in Article III, but never defined what that means. Congress writes laws, so it’s logical to me that Congress gets to define what “good behavior” entails.