Justice Alito says Congress lacks the power to impose ethics code on Supreme Court

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: NBC News

WASHINGTON — Justice Samuel Alito says Congress lacks the power to impose a code of ethics on the Supreme Court, making him the first member of the court to take a public stand against proposals in Congress to toughen ethics rules for justices in response to increased scrutiny of their activities beyond the bench.

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it. No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period,” Alito said in an interview he gave to the Wall Street Journal opinion pages. An account of the interview, which the paper said took place in New York in early July, was published Friday.

Democrats last week pushed Supreme Court ethics legislation through a Senate committee, though the bill’s prospects in the full Senate are dim.

All federal judges other than the justices already adhere to an ethics code that was developed by the federal judiciary. But the Supreme Court’s unique status — it’s the only federal court created by the Constitution — puts it outside the reach of those standards that apply to other federal jurists.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/alito-says-congress-lacks-power-impose-ethics-code-supreme-court-rcna96993

[spooky3]

1. It's not "controversial"; it's incorrect per Rep. Ted Lieu and Sen. Whitehouse. Nt

[madville]

71. SCOTUS could rule that an ethics law is unconstitutional

They get to decide what is constitutional and what isn’t, Congress’s opinion doesn’t carry much weight in that regard.

[spooky3]

72. But that is not the view of Lieu and Whitehouse. They believe

there are checks and balances on SCOTUS, as there are in other areas of government and that the legal language (and history) is clear. I foresee a showdown if SCOTUS tries to rule otherwise.

[Zeitghost]

76. It's not much of a showdown

When one side is in almost complete control of the outcome.

Short of an constitutional amendment, there is little Congress can do.

[spooky3]

77. We will see. Nt

[FBaggins]

2. And if four of his friends agree... that's how it would be

But we aren’t likely to see that day any time soon… because republicans won’t let it come to that.

[Captain Zero]

79. Since he has prejudiced himself on the question, he must recuse, right?

He should recuse if it comes before the SC.

[FBaggins]

80. It's an interesting thought problem... but it won't come before him

It would be a question for all of them since the case directly impacts all nine.

[Roy Rolling]

3. Those are the rules?

Then start the impeachment process for judges taking bribes in creative ways.

Every criminal thinks they’re smarter than law enforcement, Alito thinks no differently than a common criminal much less a Supreme Court justice.

[NewHendoLib]

4. Once again with gusto - "fuck you, Alito"

[marble falls]

5. Al Capone said similar things about his exposure to the law, too.

[TomSlick]

6. I'm unconvinced.

The Congress can impose ethical standards on SCOTUS justices making it clear that a violation is an impeachable offense. The question is whether the House would impeach and the Senate convict.

The threat of impeachment, irrespective of whether the Senate convicts, should be sufficient to cause compliance.

[bluestateboomer]

7. Who funds SCOTUS?

Doesn't Congress have the power of the purse for the entire Federal Government? What would happen if congress just decided not to send any more money for their operation?

[Bettie]

8. Alito, Thomas, and Roberts

seem to think that laws don't ever apply to them. That they are the only branch of government.

Alito wants to be king.

[Hassler]

9. Sam the Sham Alito continues his war on ethics and the Constitution

[dembotoz]

10. throw the money bags in jail and watch then squeal

I am sure the billionaires will enjoy the perp walk

[PlutosHeart]

11. Thumbs his nose

at the Country.

He embarrasses his self.

[area51]

12. "... but I'm willing to say it [because I'm drunk on power]."

There, fixed it for Sammy.

[slightlv]

13. I can't believe the founding fathers would create a branch of

government with total and complete control over itself with no check and balances by the other two parts of government. In effect, they would have been creating a monarchial branch of government. And we know, for a fact, that they were fundamentally opposed to this. So, my base instinct tells me Alito is talking out of his butt. However, I have nothing to back this up.

Is there anyone much better versed in the constitution here that can opine on this? I would really like to know. I'm knee deep in projects taking up the rest of today and tomorrow, and then have family obligations on Sunday. At the earliest, it'll be Monday before I can dig into research, and I don't want to wait that long to dig out an answer (I'm impatient that way... sigh). If anyone has an a real answer, I'd really appreciate hearing it. I'll sing your praises. I'm truly not trying to be lazy. This just hit at a really bad time for me to try to do my own research, otherwise I would... if for no other reason than to say "I know more than SCJ Alito!" (LOL) My gut tells me he's just trying to cover his own criminality... and he'd really like to go on into perpetuity doing his crimes... his and the rest of the right wing criminals. They've never been so close to having it all their way before, and they don't want to give it up now for something as petty as ethics. Christians, Catholics, Dominionists, and Opus Deists, my foot! grrrrr If there is such a thing as a god like they say they believe in, may he meet them in the afterlife with "rewards" for everything they deserve from their actions here on earth, and then promptly send them off to their Master, the devil.

[FBaggins]

26. They wouldn't and didn't

The check and balance in this case is twofold:

1 - congress can impeach and remove
2 - If SCOTUS interprets a law in a way that Congress didn’t intend… they can change the law. If they interpret the constitution incorrectly… Congress can begin the process of amending the constitution (or - in certain cases - can remove that subject area from the court’s jurisdiction.

What the FFs did intend was for the courts to be as independent as possible from politics. Which makes it very hard for one of the political branches to exercise more granular control of how the court operates

[msfiddlestix]

34. I hope to see scholars respond to this en mass in every paper across the land

and media outlets take this corrupt thug to the woodshed with relentless flogging.

expose his ignorance, his power drunk bias and hypocrisy to the most humiliating degree.

not that he would read it. but he'd hear about it relentlessly.

[MayReasonRule]

52. Goddamn Right!!

No one needs no goddamn saving except from the evil and the fools.

That’s the real good news.

[bluestarone]

14. Actually at this time, i feel he's 100% correct.

With THIS court and THIS congress he's 100% correct! It's up to the VOTERS to help us ALL change his thinking!! We gotta get rid of this type judges! VOTE like there is NO tomorrow!! (because if they win, there is NO TOMORROW)

[Qutzupalotl]

15. Alito lacks the power to refuse bribes

so here we are.

[JudyM]

55. This.

[EndlessWire]

16. Get a load of that

First, he complains about criticism of the Court, and now he's got pushback on mandatory ethics codes. My, my. They want to make independent law with fictitious plaintiff scenarios, and now he keeps whining when we don't like their rightwing, prejudiced opinions. So, he wants to make sure that we can't control them.

This smells like a 6-3 standoff against integrity of the Judiciary. If we get our hands on the House, Senate, and the Presidency, we will fix this lack of ethics.

[LittleGirl]

22. From your lips! YES! nt

[Zeitghost]

73. The recent statement from the court

Essentially telling Congress to back off, was signed by all nine.

[hildegaard28]

17. Apparently

The supreme court is a rogue branch of government which is completely exempt from U.S. law. If you were to believe Alito, that is.

[yaesu]

20. The supreme fascist courd is the royalty in the us, have the final say. nt

[MayReasonRule]

40. Indeed, SCOTUS Is Y'all Qaeda's Nat-C Fascist Spanish Inquisition Shit For Brains Style...

Closely held beliefs and genitals have these things in common...

It's okay to have them, it's okay to hold them closely...

It is not okay to shove either down anyone else's throat!

[niyad]

18. sammy should quit wasting oxygen.

[PSPS]

19. To paraphrase another shining figure, "If a supreme court justice does it, it's not illegal."

[Earth-shine]

21. Expand the court now!

[Marthe48]

23. And the thugs sitting on the bench

of the (formerly) supreme court lack the power to resist being crooked as a dog's hind leg.

[Ray Bruns]

24. Justice Alito does know where his paychecks come from, right?

[FBaggins]

28. He does - and he knows that there's nothing they can do about it

[Ray Bruns]

44. The hell congress can't. They can turn off the money spigot any time they want.

There is no article in constitution that says the justices have to get paid, funding for their building or their staff.

[FBaggins]

45. Sorry - flat wrong

The constitution explicitly says that their compensation cannot be reduced.

Funding for operations is almost as secure. Multiple legislatures have learned this the hard way.

[Ray Bruns]

69. Well you're right.

“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.”

[COL Mustard]

25. So the Supreme Court

IS the law? Or are they just above it? And the Justices wonder why we mere peons look on them with disdain.

[Wonder Why]

27. Thanks, Sam. You've proved how far down SCOTUS has gone.

Worthless piece of garbage.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

29. Why not use Exceptions Clause more?

Article III's Exceptions Clause grants Congress the power to make “exceptions” and “regulations” to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. Congress sometimes exercises this power by “stripping” federal courts of jurisdiction to hear a class of cases

Literally take away SCOTUS ability to review cases?

[ashredux]

30. Easy Peezy, impeach the SOB

[bullimiami]

31. Accepting bribes is a crime. DOJ should be deeply investigating everything about corrupt justices

charge and try them. can they serve on the court from jail? who cares.

the only remedy is not impeachment. not for a president not for a sc justice. any other answer is bullshit.

[Lonestarblue]

35. Proving the bribe is the problem.

All expenses luxury vacations do not necessarily have a direct impact on a Supreme Court decision, a decision shared by 8 other justices.

Alito and Thomas both know that they cannot be impeached because Republicans in Congress will refuse to do so. Nor will they resign their cushy jobs. They can commit all kinds of unethical acts, and there is nothing we can do about it other than raise a stink in the court of public opinion. They also don’t care about public opinion. It would likely take years, but the process of amending the Constitution to get rid of lifetime appointments and to set some standards for judicial selection and behavior should start now. Lifetime appointments are an invitation to utter corruption, and Alito and Thomas stepped through that door long ago.

[bullimiami]

54. For sure. You won't find evidence if you don't look.

[Polybius]

32. We can disagree all we want

But anything would be struck down, possibly 9-0. Why would they want a code on themselves, when they could simply strike it down?

[FBaggins]

36. And if they strike it down 9-0...

... we're the ones who look like we're out of line.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

33. Alito: It's good to be king. n/t

[LuckyLib]

37. Sam, the Constitution did not provide for shenanigans like refusing to consider a nomination

too close to an election, but then doing so when it suits their purposes.

[MayReasonRule]

38. Oh yeah? Congress Sets SCOTUS' Appellate Jurisdiction, Therefore...

Here is a nice law that could be passed ya' bunch of traitorous Nat-C Fascists:

SECTION 1: All appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States is hereby revoked until the Court shall promulgate, adopt, and agree to enforce a Code of Ethics that is binding, enforceable, and subject to Congressional review. If SCOTUS fails to adopt such a Code of Ethics 180 days from the signing of this Legislation by POTUS, no appellate cases shall be heard by them whatsoever, and each and every SCOTUS Justice shall therefore be required to 'Ride Circuit' in the districts they have been assigned at the time of this legislation's passing.

SECTION 2: Because Airplanes, Trains, Ubers, Lyft, and Automobile travel are not 'deeply rooted in the history and tradition with the adoption of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment' (see Dobbs vs Jackson, Alito, writing for the Majority; Thomas, in Concurrence; Kavanaugh, Completely Inebriated), Justices' travel for circuit presiding shall be reimbursed from the General Appropriated Funds for modes of travel only including Horseback, Carriage, Steamship, or Travel on Foot to said locations of Federal Courthouses.

SECTION 3: No SCOTUS Justice shall be allowed the use of a Computer Medium for communication while 'Riding Circuit', and may only use Congressionally-approved Telegraph or Postal Couriers that were in operation at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (see Dobbs vs Jackson, Alito, writing for the Majority; Thomas, in Concurrence; Kavanaugh, now Completely Shitfaced).

SECTION 4: All Justices shall submit to urine and pregnancy drug testing as Congress deems appropriate, as 'potential fetal life' is paramount, and if upon a positive pregnancy test, they shall be required to file an 'Intent to Give Birth" certificate with the Archivist or face Proceedings of Impeachment and Removal.

----

Want more? Does SCOTUS really want to fuck around and find out? I say, let's give Alito the fight he is looking for. Because I'd love nothing more than to send that [fascist shit] to Juno Alaska for 11 months and 20 days a year on a fucking mule.

[FBaggins]

41. No chance that would stand

Of course… there’s also no chance that it would pass. So there’s little point in debating.

[MayReasonRule]

43. I Enjoyed The Concept's Impetus - Whether Or Not It's A Viable Proposition Is Not My Wheelhouse

Here's to the Democratic rule of reason!

[msfiddlestix]

66. ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ n/t

[MayReasonRule]

68. Happy Sunday Y'all!!!

Laissez bon temps rouler!

[Hekate]

39. Mr. Alito may well be the most arrogant bastard ever to serve on the Court. Add to that ...

…his way of moralizing against the rest of American citizens by quoting pre-USA, even medieval, clerics and judges in his decisions from SCOTUS — and I’d say he’s definitely in the wrong job.

[msfiddlestix]

67. Exactly how I though of Scalia, Alito must be competing the most sociopathic asshat

neck and neck with Thomas.

[The Wizard]

42. Sammy The Weasel

should be working in the license plate factory.

[dchill]

50. But only under watchful eyes.

[Stuart G]

46. Not up to Alito, but up to the 8 other justices. If 5 decide the opposite, Alito is FUCKED.

This is not complicated. And I hope that Fucking Sam is Fucked. (sorry about the language)

[Botany]

47. Ethical Problems w/the SCOTUS

No ethics, no problem

[Martin68]

48. Alito's arrogance is only exceeded by his hubris. And we all know, as the Greeks did, that it never

ends well.

[cstanleytech]

49. Congress has the right to set the budget amount set aside for the

Court (in other words try running the Court without AC, running water or lights) and it also has the right to reduce or even withdraw any federal personal providing protection provided to the Court.
Its one of the checks that is in place incase the Court tries to go rogue.

[FBaggins]

51. They really don't

Congress didn't create the court by legislation - the Constitution created it.

This isn't speculation. There have been a number of cases where a Republican state legislature has decided to cut (for instance) public education. Only to find the state supreme court won't let them do it because the state constitution created the obligation to have public schools and therefore to fund them appropriately.

[cstanleytech]

56. I didn't say Congress had the power to order them about but it does have the power of the purse

which means it doesn't have to provide enough monies to pay for things like electricity or additional security to the Court as that's a courtesy that Congress is providing to them as it's not mandated by the Constitution.

[FBaggins]

57. I understood what you meant. You're incorrect

Last edited Sun Jul 30, 2023, 09:18 AM - Edit history (1)

The courts have regularly understood an obligation for legislatures to appropriately fund constitutionally-mandated functions. Republicans in the House might defund some west wing program that congress created - but they can’t defund the west wing. The executive branch was created by the constitution and congress can’t (by way of funding reductions) mess with its core operations

They are literally obligated to keep the lights on. The “power of the purse” is substantial… but it is not unlimited.

And… of course… if it ever came to a challenge - guess who gets to rule on the question?

[cstanleytech]

64. The Court operated just fine with candles and AC though for decades and

they can do so again.
Plus I dont see where in the Constitution it has to provide the funds for things like aides to the Court.

[Snoopy 7]

53. So alito

as you said 'technically' congress has no power to restrain your corruption? Well "technically" the Supreme Court can not make LAW and that is what you have been doing, isn't it?

[Novara]

58. Now that the heat is on and we're watching, it's a lot harder to bribe SCOTUS justices

That's what Alito is pissed off about.

He's acting like a child: YOU CAN'T MAKE ME! Congress needs to act like the parent: JUST YOU WATCH ME, BUSTER.


They're all afraid and pissed off that their gravy train is done, finito, because now the entire country is watching them. It's gonna be a lot harder for the bribes to continue while the spotlight is on them.


Question for constitutional scholars: if Congress finds out they're deciding a case for one of their sugar daddies, can they intervene to stop it? I'm afraid that the SCOTUS will get much more blatant about taking cases where their sugar daddies have an interest. I understand that Congress can decide on jurisdictional matters for the court, but do they have any authority if Thomas, for example, decides they will hear a case where Harlan Crow is involved? I mean, since republicans love to do performative, in-your-face exercises of raw power, I worry that the SCOTUS will do the same. They don't have a reputation to protect anymore, so there's no reason for them to not wield power even more abusively than they are already.

[msfiddlestix]

70. Excellent questions, great points, n/t

[Mysterian]

59. "The common rabble in the House and Senate has no authority over us, the gods!"

Proclaims a traitorous piece of human garbage.

[Seinan Sensei]

60. Hey Sam

There is no right that is absolute.
None.
Period.

[617Blue]

61. Alito strikes me as someone who has really bad breath.

Just a thought.

[dchill]

62. The Supreme Court is ethically unimpeachable, right, Sammy?

[bluestarone]

63. Well now, WE get the numbers we're looking for in 24, then

He and the rest of this court might just see what that congress can really do!

[Zeitghost]

75. Even the most optimistic views on the 2024 elections

Will not give us the numbers to impeach or amend the Constitution without Republican votes. And without impeachment or an amendment, there is little ability to regulate the conduct of the Justices.

[roamer65]

65. Wrong.

[Zeitghost]

74. He is more or less correct

Congress has checks against the power of the court, but the only one that deals with the conduct of the Justices themselves is the impeachment process. Congress has no authority to impose an enforceable ethics code, but they can impeach for unethical conduct if they have the votes.

[Angleae]

78. Put it in the next funding bill for the court.

While congress can't deny the justices their paychecks, they can de-fund the rest of the court. Law clerks, secretaries, filing clerks, security, janitorial, etc. If they don't accept the ethics code, they don't get the funding for the court.

[Marthe48]

81. Hope you get indicted next

you criminal p.o.s.