Senate Judiciary Committee sends legislation imposing code of ethics on Supreme Court to full Senate

[HARK!]

What Article says that?

Source: Black's Law Dictionary P.311 Black's law dictionary

 

[Pommer]

View attachment 333930

Source: Black's Law Dictionary P.311 Black's law dictionary

You think this is likely to occur?

 

[JSRG]

The SCOTUS has standing.

Justice Alito says Congress can’t regulate Supreme Court, impose ethics reforms​

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that Congress doesn’t have the authority to impose ethics rules on the high court, defending himself and his colleagues as they’ve been under scrutiny from liberal lawmakers and activists for conflict of interest allegations in recent months.

His remarks make him the first justice to publicly push back against Democrats, who have prompted legislation to impose a code of ethics on the Supreme Court.

“Congress did not create the Supreme Court,” he told the Wall Street Journal Opinion writers in an interview published Friday. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

Justice Alito says Congress can’t regulate Supreme Court, impose ethics reforms

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that Congress doesn’t have the authority to impose ethics rules on the high court, defending himself and his colleagues as they’ve been under scrutiny from liberal lawmakers and activists for conflict of interest allegations in recent months.

www.washingtontimes.com

Nothing in the article says anything about standing, so I'm not sure how it's supposed to show there's standing. That said, if we suppose the SCOTUS itself has standing to challenge such a law, we run into the thorny question of how in the world such a case can properly go to court. The SCOTUS obviously can't judge it, because they'd be the plaintiff; is it even possible to have a larger conflict of interest for a judge other than them being both the judge and the plaintiff or defendant? Reminds me of this joke:

Or does it all get decided by a lower court? Maybe just some members of the SCOTUS would sue over it and the rest, which aren't direct party, would judge it? It all seems rather dicey.

Incidentally, the linked article doesn't give the full interview from the Wall State Journal, which appears to be behind a paywall. Does Alito give any explanation as to how congress can issue ethic regulations for all the other federal courts, but the Supreme Court is off limits? Or is he saying that those regulations are unconstitutional too?

 

[HARK!]

You think this is likely to occur?

I sure hope not. I can't trust these guys with the Constitution that they are already trampling.

 

[HARK!]

Nothing in the article says anything about standing, so I'm not sure how it's supposed to show there's standing. That said, if we suppose the SCOTUS itself has standing to challenge such a law, we run into the thorny question of how in the world such a case can properly go to court. The SCOTUS obviously can't judge it, because they'd be the plaintiff; is it even possible to have a larger conflict of interest for a judge other than them being both the judge and the plaintiff or defendant? Reminds me of this joke:

Or does it all get decided by a lower court? Maybe just some members of the SCOTUS would sue over it and the rest, which aren't direct party, would judge it? It all seems rather dicey.

Incidentally, the linked article doesn't give the full interview from the Wall State Journal, which appears to be behind a paywall. Does Alito give any explanation as to how congress can issue ethic regulations for all the other federal courts, but the Supreme Court is off limits? Or is he saying that those regulations are unconstitutional too?

The SCOTUS has already set precedence.

″Any and all laws that are in conflict with the Constitution are invalid and of no force or effect.″ (Marbury v. Madison, 1803)

Quo warranto?

 

[JSRG]

The SCOTUS has already set precedence.

″Any and all laws that are in conflict with the Constitution are invalid and of no force or effect.″ (Marbury v. Madison, 1803)

First, that's not addressing the question of standing at all.

Second, I do not see that quote anywhere in Marbury v. Madison. Can you show me where it is?

 

[HARK!]

First, that's not addressing the question of standing at all.

You didn't answer my question either. My question would be relevant before yours.

Quo warranto?

 

[HARK!]

Second, I do not see that quote anywhere in Marbury v. Madison. Can you show me where it is?

"an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.


The rule must be discharged. "

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[JSRG]

You didn't answer my question either. My question would be relevant before yours.

What question have I not answered? You didn't ask a question in the post I replied to, nor did you ask one in your reply to me. You just announced "the Supreme Court has standing" and then posted an article that had nothing to do with the question of standing.

"an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.


The rule must be discharged. "

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

That's not the quote you offered. If you were intending your statement to be a paraphrase or a summary, you shouldn't have presented your statement with quotation marks to indicate it was an actual quote.

 

[NxNW]

The SCOTUS has standing.

Justice Alito says Congress can’t regulate Supreme Court, impose ethics reforms​

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that Congress doesn’t have the authority to impose ethics rules on the high court, defending himself and his colleagues as they’ve been under scrutiny from liberal lawmakers and activists for conflict of interest allegations in recent months.

His remarks make him the first justice to publicly push back against Democrats, who have prompted legislation to impose a code of ethics on the Supreme Court.

“Congress did not create the Supreme Court,” he told the Wall Street Journal Opinion writers in an interview published Friday. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

Maybe Alito should read the Constitution, specifically Section 3, Article 2, Clause 2.

You might consider reading it yourself.

• Clause 2 Supreme Court Jurisdiction
• 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.
  
  

 

[Arcangl86]

Alito should not be commenting on a law that is currently being debated. If it passes it almost for sure will be brought to Court and now Alito has already said which way he would rule.

 

[Fantine]

Perhaps the proposed law has too many roadblocks it needs to pass to ever become law.

But it shines a bright light on a very, very dark and dishonest problem in the Supreme Court. The stronger and longer that light is shown on some justice's profiteering from their profession, the more pressure will be put to bear on the Court to clean up its own act, and perhaps for the most egregious of offenders--Thomas--to resign.

There is nothing in the Senate bill that could not be imposed by an honest, ethical Court. If Chief Justice Roberts really "cares" about the Court appearing impartial, we expect him to correct the "appearance" with reality.

And it's possible the Court could never rule on this measure if it became law. The "plaintiff" has to be someone directly affected by the measure---and the only people affected by the measure in the entire federal government are the nine sitting justices who are exempt.

 

[Arcangl86]

Perhaps the proposed law has too many roadblocks it needs to pass to ever become law.

But it shines a bright light on a very, very dark and dishonest problem in the Supreme Court. The stronger and longer that light is shown on some justice's profiteering from their profession, the more pressure will be put to bear on the Court to clean up its own act, and perhaps for the most egregious of offenders--Thomas--to resign.

There is nothing in the Senate bill that could not be imposed by an honest, ethical Court. If Chief Justice Roberts really "cares" about the Court appearing impartial, we expect him to correct the "appearance" with reality.

And it's possible the Court could never rule on this measure if it became law. The "plaintiff" has to be someone directly affected by the measure---and the only people affected by the measure in the entire federal government are the nine sitting justices who are exempt.

Well, what would happen probably is that if SCOTUS disagrees with the law, they just won't comply. Congress can then attempt to sue to enforce the law, but that would ultimately end up at SCOTUS.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, what would happen probably is that if SCOTUS disagrees with the law, they just won't comply. Congress can then attempt to sue to enforce the law, but that would ultimately end up at SCOTUS.

I believe they have the power to impeach (and convict) any justice that fails to comply. This is a power that SCOTUS cannot ignore.

 

[Arcangl86]

I believe they have the power to impeach (and convict) any justice that fails to comply. This is a power that SCOTUS cannot ignore.

Meh. In theory yes, but the bar for impeachment is high enough that it's mostly a dead letter.