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 ...
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.’
I'm not a lawyer but that looks like Congress does have some significant authority over the court.
You are correct, you are not a lawyer. Look very closely at this sentence. It only speaks to to the issue of jurisdiction, appellate or original.
Whatever they do to regulate the Supreme Court would just be shot down as unconstitutional so this is an incredibly dumb battle to even start.
No, the idiot is correct this time.
Congress DOES have CHECKS AND BALANCES on the Supreme Court.
EACH of the three branches as ways to check the other two branches.
But I rather expect the idiot misstated what Alito’s point was. So lets put it in the ‘stopped clock is correct twice per day’.
The Constitution does not capitalize Supreme Court from what I see in my 1956 copy of the Constitution.
The Congress might try to designate the Bardstown Ladies Stock Pickers Society as the supreme court.
An important, underused check and balance. Eg. IIRC illegal aliens are eligible for loads of federal benefits not because Congress authorized that, but because some judge overturned Congress's banning of their eligibility. The solution requires two steps. First win WH and a large enough pro-American majority in House and Senate to pass the following. Then simply pass a new ban rendering illegals ineligible for the federal bennies and include a clause stating that wasn't judicially reviewable.
Completed it for you.
The Constitution does refer to a “chief justice” and states that “judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior...”
So therefore, apparently, as long as John Roberts behaves, he will remain chief justice and his court the supreme court.
“Then simply pass a new ban rendering illegals ineligible for the federal bennies and include a clause stating that wasn’t judicially reviewable.”
If a household has one US citizen, then federal law is commonly written so the entire household can feast on taxpayer money.
Murphy is a communist and an idiot that doesn’t have any idea of what his mouth is saying.
How ironic the deep-state scoundrel Murphy is promoting the power of Congress.
The only reason is because the deep-state doesn’t control SCOTUS
You expect a Democrat to know what’s in the constitution?
Congress can’t no more regulate the ethics of the Supreme Court than the Supreme Court can regulate the ethics of Congress.
LOTS of rewrites needed. Although my most desired bill doesn't need any rewriting, just a long listing of prior bad bills to append to "The following prior bills are hereby cancelled." If returning to < i>status quo ante makes sense and would be an improvement. If there were some legit problems prior to the bill, but on the net that bill's 'fix' made things worse take the quick imperfect fix of cancellation now and throw whatever the prior problem was to an appropriate committee to see if they can find a real fix. The Federal Government: laws, regulation and people all need to shrink, A LOT!
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
The Constitution did not create the Judicial Branch; it instructed the Legislature to do so. The Legislature created the Judicial Branch with the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Art. 3, Sec. 2:
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Constitution states explicitly that the Congress does have regulatory authority over the Judicial Branch.
The Congress can do away with the Circuit Courts and District Courts. The Legislature can do away with all but one justice, or authorize however many it chooses. There have been as few as 5 and as many as 10. The number currently stands at 9.
The number was raised from 9 to 10 after Lincoln got a big scare in the Prize Cases, with his war effort surviving by a 5-4 vote. With 10 justices, 4 appointed by Lincoln, he was secure for the remainder of the war. After Democrat Andrew Johnson became President, the number was lowered to 7 by attrition, assuring that Johnson would never nominate a justice. After Republican Grant assumed office, the number was restored to 9, allowing Grant to fill vacancies. There it has remained since.
The vast majority of cases at the Supreme Court are on Appellate jurisdiction. The Congress can remove the Appellate jurisdiction to hear any or all such cases. In cases of original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court acts as a trial court. That almost never happens.
The Congress controls the funding of the Judicial Branch as well as of the Executive Branch.
Lol! I remember that from college, I think the original comment is attributed to Andrew Jackson after the Supreme Court struck down his Indian Removal Act (which he essentially ignored anyway). He threatened to reduce the Supreme Court to "John Marshall sitting in an empty room with a candle." (he is also reputed to have said, "John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it" but that was mentioned by Horace Greely decades later so may have been true or not).
But technically he was correct, all the Constitution says is:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
So yes, the Constitution only says that there has to be a Supreme Court and Inferior Courts. So, in theory, all Congress is required to do is establish the Supreme Court with at least the Chief Justice and one or two lower courts with a single judge as well. And since it says nothing about funding other than they have to pay "compensation". They could indeed stick him in a dark room with zero funding for staff or utilities and pay him $50 a year as "compensation".
The checks and balances comes only IF congress passes a law. Then IF a case comes before the court. That is the only input they have
Right, good catch.
Still, the point remains... if congress were to say, ok, all federal judges with appellate authority must subscribe to the following code of ethics, well, there it is.
All of which has zip to do with the notion of Congress imposing a code of ethics.
All of which has zip to do with the notion of Congress imposing a code of ethics.
It has everything to do with what Alito said. "... the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction... under such regulations as the Congress shall make." It's kind of hard to maintain that Congress cannot make regulations for the Judiciary.
That Congress can make regulations for the Judiciary does not mean every regulation passes muster. They can't make the justices subordinate to a committee of their subordinates.
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.