Posted on 07/30/2023 6:17:39 PM PDT by RandFan
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday sharply criticized Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s assertion this week that Congress does not have authority to regulate the Supreme Court and noted that Alito’s seat on the court exists only because Congress determined the number of justices that sit on the high court.
“First of all, it’s just stunningly wrong. And he should know that more than anyone else because his seat on the Supreme Court exists only because of an act passed by Congress. It is Congress that establishes the number of justices on the Supreme Court. It is Congress that has passed in the past requirements for justices to disclose certain information,” Murphy said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“It is just wrong on the facts to say that Congress doesn’t have anything to do with the rules guiding the Supreme Court. In fact, from the very beginning, Congress has set those rules,” Murphy added.
Murphy’s statement comes after Alito, in a Wall Street Journal interview Friday, pushed back on efforts by Senate Democrats to enact stronger ethics rules on the high court after reporting emerged that conservative justices accepted gifts from GOP donors without disclosing them.
“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito said in the interview. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Murphy should forget the communist teachings he learned as a youth and realize the difference between “authorizing” as seat and “controlling” a seat!
Murphy is an idiot. SCOTUS is a separate entity and congress has no business telling it how to do its job
By Congress’ logic then they can regulate the executive branch as well because its also created in a document by Congress, the Constitution.
Our Founding Fafhers tried to make it so evil people couldn’t find loopholes in their genius. They may have underestimated the stupidity of people combined with their evil.
Congress can regulate the number of seats on the Court and they can establish the types of cases the Court has jurisdiction over (other than those listed in the Constitution). Congress cannot establish the rules by which the Court operates any more than the President can regulate how Congress operates.
Congress could reduce the entire federal court system to John Roberts sitting at a card table with a candle.
But Congress has no say over the internal workings of Scotus.
Suck it up Murphy.
Source: whitehouse.gov
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the land
and the only part of the federal judiciary specifically required by the Constitution.
The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court Justices; the number is set instead by Congress. There have been as few as six, but since 1869 there have been nine Justices, including one Chief Justice.
All Justices are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and hold their offices under life tenure. Since Justices do not have to run or campaign for re-election, they are thought to be insulated from political pressure when deciding cases. Justices may remain in office until they resign, pass away, or are impeached and convicted by Congress.
The Court’s caseload is almost entirely appellate in nature, and the Court’s decisions cannot be appealed to any authority, as it is the final judicial arbiter in the United States on matters of federal law. However, the Court may consider appeals from the highest state courts or from federal appellate courts. The Court also has original jurisdiction over limited types of cases, including those involving ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases between states.
Although the Supreme Court may hear an appeal on any question of law provided it has jurisdiction, it usually does not hold trials. Instead, the Court’s task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied. Lower courts are obligated to follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court when rendering decisions.
In almost all instances, the Supreme Court does not hear appeals as a matter of right; instead, parties must petition the Court for a writ of certiorari. It is the Court’s custom and practice to “grant cert” if four of the nine Justices decide that they should hear the case. Of the approximately 7,500 requests for certiorari filed each year, the Court usually grants cert to fewer than 150. These are typically cases that the Court considers sufficiently important to require their review; a common example is the occasion when two or more of the federal courts of appeals have ruled differently on the same question of federal law.
If the Court grants certiorari, Justices accept legal briefs from the parties to the case, as well as from amicus curiae, or “friends of the court.” These can include industry trade groups, academics, or even the U.S. government itself. Before issuing a ruling, the Supreme Court usually hears oral arguments, where the various parties to the suit present their arguments and the Justices ask them questions.
If the case involves the federal government, the Solicitor General of the United States presents arguments on behalf of the United States. The Justices then hold private conferences, make their decision, and (often after a period of several months) issue the Court’s opinion, along with any dissenting arguments that may have been written.
Three equal branches of government.
But perhaps some branches are more equal than others?
The Constitution established that the supreme Court could be told what cases to be seen or reviewed by Congress, and what regulations Congress has been given to jurisdiction.
No, actually Senator Murphy, YOU are wrong. Congress can limit the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. Congress can set the size of the SCOTUS. Congress can set up new Circuits or do away with a Circuit if they wanted to. But nowhere in the constitution does it say that Congress can regulate the courts. That would violate the separation of powers. The SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of government, not subordinate to the Congress.
Murphy is half right here. Except for the power of impeachment, Congress does not have any constitutional authority to regulate what the Supreme Court does. The Supreme Court sets its own rules.
However, Congress most certainly can decide how many justices sit on that court. There are currently nine Supreme Court justices. If Congress decides to up that number to 100, and if the President agrees, then by golly we’ll have 100 Supreme Court justices.
Hey Murph! Three co-equal branches of government!! We don’t change that based on the whims of moronic democrats.
Bless his heart.
If somehow, yeah I know, he were ever appointed, he’d be all for it. Funny how that always is the case.
Consistent with that logic, no voters need to obey Congress since their votes and monies are responsible for those particular law-makers occupying seats of power.
Dumb and arrogant is ideal strategy for them. It provides a certain safe simplicity which is impenetrable to those claiming to be smarter and more ethical in their attacks. Sounding smart and full of wisdom only gets you into trouble. (Enter John Fetterman, AOC, Chris Murphy, Ilhian Ohmar, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, etc....)
“Article I
Section 8.
The Congress shall have power...To make rules for the government...”
Chris Murphy is blowing smoke, as usual. There were actually TEN Supreme Court Justices 150 years ago, but Congress determined to reduce it to nine (probably to avoid 5 - 5 ties).
So, while it’s true that Congress can determine the number of justices, Murphy is being deceptive. Now, if he had been around in the early 1800s, when the number of justices was six (set in 1798 with the Judiciary Act), and Congress added a seventh so that Alito could become a justice, then Murphy might have a point. But he loses that argument when in fact the number of justices went to ten in the 1860s, but was soon reduced to nine.
Murphy a living argument for repeal of the 17th Amendment!
Even the Connecticut legislature couldn’t do worse!
There is Article III, Section I:
“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish....”
It may not be legal for Congress to undermine that vested judicial power by rule setting, or unwanted expansion.
“judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior...”
In theory, the House of Representatives could impeach a justice for accepting dubious gifts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.