Justice Samuel Alito said Congress has “no authority” to regulate the Supreme Court in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published Friday, pushing back against Democ…
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.
I guess “checks and balances” means nothing, then. What happens when congress passes laws to regulate them and they just say “nuh uh that’s unconstitutional” when it’s obviously and demonstrably not?
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
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.
I guess “checks and balances” means nothing, then. What happens when congress passes laws to regulate them and they just say “nuh uh that’s unconstitutional” when it’s obviously and demonstrably not?
This is what happens.
There are plenty of times when they say stuff that is blatantly unconstitutional is constitutional as well
My guy Sammy probably thinks ‘checks and balances’ are concerning his bank account.