• Moyer1666@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    248
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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.

      • flipht@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          52
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year 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.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem is they can also decide that isn’t what that means, it’s hilariously stupid to be able to do it but they can.

          • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            corrupt scotus justices: we’re strict constitutionalists. if it says it in the constitution, it’s the law. if it doesn’t say it in the constitution, it’s not the law

            the constitution: …well-organized militia…

            corrupt scotus justices: no not like that

            the constitution: …equal protection under the law…

            corrupt scotus justices: no not like that

            the constitution: …against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…

            corrupt scotus justices: no not like that

            the constitution: slavery is legal

            corrupt scotus justices: that’s more what we were thinking…

        • What do you mean they haven’t read the laws?

          I think all of them were all good law students, law review editors, judicial clerks, and judges for some time, before being appointed. It’s all law practice, it’s all reading law. There can’t be a fundamental concept of law they aren’t well familiar with.

          • flipht@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I say that because they clearly don’t give a shit, or they’d avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

            If they can’t even be bothered to not do obvious stuff with conflict of interest/money/cases before them, why would they be putting in any actual work? Especially the ones who are there for prestige alone, their clerks are doing their reading and writing for them.

            Alito and Thomas in particular have said things recently and historically that indicate they’re just phoning it in.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year 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.”

          • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            we were worried that republicans were gonna make the president a dictator appointed exclusively by republicans, and while we were fighting against that they made scotus a dictator appointed exclusively by republicans

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year 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.

          • APassenger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That would be unconstitutional and ruled that way, too. The law cannot take away a thing guaranteed by the Constitution (the lifetime appointment).

            There would need to be an impeachment or amendment. Or court-packing.

            • mriguy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It would be evil and unethical, yes, but not unconstitutional. They would still be justices right up until their execution, so it’s still a lifetime appointment.

              • APassenger@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It could still run up against tue 8th Amendment, more specifically the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

                Edit to add: being convicted of a capital crime does not guarantee a death sentence. Anything less than death still bumps into a Constitutional issue.

                Coming and going, there’s a likely Constituional challenge. An amendment would almost be easier.

                • mriguy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ah, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that execution is not in and of itself cruel and unusual punishment, as long as you follow procedures and don’t apply it arbitrarily.

                  “ In Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), the Court refused to expand Furman. The Court held the death penalty was not per se unconstitutional as it could serve the social purposes of retribution and deterrence.” (From https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/death_penalty#:~:text=The Supreme Court has ruled,it must be carried out.)

                  In this case, deterring justices from staying on the bench forever. :-)

                  If, however, the passage of this law made SCOTUS decide the throw precedent to the wind (and this is the court to do it) and decide that the death penalty WAS in fact unconstitutional, I’d still take it as a win

                • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  death penalty isn’t cruel or unusual. scotus said so themselves. they even said a punishment could be cruel as long as it isn’t unusual.

    • 001100 010010@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year 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.

  • Fisk400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • bemenaker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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.

      • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess we could just just pass a law that any supreme court justice that sits on the bench after attaining the age of 80 will be summarily executed in celebration of their achievements.

        Then when the alw is challenged to the court, the textualists can’t argue that it’s cruel and unusual punishment because it is infact a celebration.

      • whenigrowup356@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I believe the proposals being floated right now are for instituting term limits by having justices retire to Senior Justice status after a set number of years. They’d still be technically appointed and able to sit in on cases in special circumstances, but not on normal duty.

    • zerkrazus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year 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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • KairuByte@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • rambaroo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year 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.

        • rambaroo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The president could also order the executive branch to stop enforcing their rulings. It doesn’t even have to involve Congress. They could even counterdict SCOTUS. I’m not saying it would automatically work, but it could work under the right conditions.

  • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year 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.

  • mechoman444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • 4kki@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • Zron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • rambaroo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Then what would stop Congress from creating blatantly unconstitutional laws? Getting rid of judicial review sounds like a good idea now because the court is run by fascists, but I’m not convinced that getting rid of it entirely would make things better.

        I think judicial review needs some serious revision and way to check against its power, but getting rid of it completely makes the legislature too powerful.

        • Zron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To quote myself “create a new entity that is responsible for constitutional interpretation”

          Preferably these would be elected positions under the legislative branch with a formal code of ethics and terms limits. If a position is going to change the interpretation of laws, it should fall under the preview of law makers.

          Judicial review has been used, and is fundamentally the power, to legislate from the bench. The duty of a court is to decide how laws are to be executed, not to decide what those laws mean. The meaning of the law is up to congress, and the enforcement of the law is up to the executive branch. The court is merely there to decide when those laws have been breached and what punishment that entity deserves, if any.

        • Zron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          How is this far right? The right loves the current court, it’s their personal sledgehammer they can pull out to erode our freedoms whenever they wish.

          Just because something had been done for a long time, doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.

          For a long time, the west had kings as governments. We fought a war to get rid of that. The French started cutting off heads to end that.

          For a long time, the church was a key government entity, our constitution explicitly states that the government is entirely separate to the church.

          For a long time, common people had no rights to trial by peers or privacy in their own homes from the government. Again, we have an amendment that enshrines that.

          The Supreme Court has been abusing their power too much and for too long. It needs to change, and one those changes should be to judicial review. No more legislation from the bench.

            • Zron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              everything I don’t personally agree with is a far right position

              Okay bud. I see I’m dealing with a highly intelligent being. After all, we definitely have a tripartite government when we have a legislative branch that makes laws and an unelected judicial branch that… also makes laws by deciding what is and isn’t constitutional and what rights are and aren’t protected by the constitution.

              Yup, sure sounds like a totally fair and balanced system of government that definitely doesn’t need a major overhaul and sever limits places on it by the other branches.

              But I guess actually wanting checks and balances is a far right position, so, according to you, shouldn’t be done.