• Moyer1666@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    255
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You’re wrong Alito, Congress can definitely make rules and laws to regulate you. They have the explicit authority to do that.

    “The court can be trusted to self-regulate”

    That’s bullshit. With your unethical bribes being accepted and the bullshit rulings you’ve been making have proven you’re an incompetent corrupt court.

      • flipht@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        55
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, these people haven’t even read the laws they’re supposed to be deciding cases on. You expect him to read his own website too? The privilege.

        /s

        • chaogomu@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          56
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You used sarcasm. Samuel Alito might not have read actual law in years. He mostly writes about the current manufactured outrage from Fox News, and tries to shoehorn that into an opinion. He’s gone off-topic a few times in recent years, trying to shove culture war bullshit into cases where they’re only tangentially related.

          It’s called Fox News Brain. Your racist uncle and a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court both have it.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem is they can also decide that isn’t what that means, it’s hilariously stupid to be able to do it but they can.

          • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            corrupt scotus justices: we’re strict constitutionalists. if it says it in the constitution, it’s the law. if it doesn’t say it in the constitution, it’s not the law

            the constitution: …well-organized militia…

            corrupt scotus justices: no not like that

            the constitution: …equal protection under the law…

            corrupt scotus justices: no not like that

            the constitution: …against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…

            corrupt scotus justices: no not like that

            the constitution: slavery is legal

            corrupt scotus justices: that’s more what we were thinking…

        • What do you mean they haven’t read the laws?

          I think all of them were all good law students, law review editors, judicial clerks, and judges for some time, before being appointed. It’s all law practice, it’s all reading law. There can’t be a fundamental concept of law they aren’t well familiar with.

          • flipht@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I say that because they clearly don’t give a shit, or they’d avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

            If they can’t even be bothered to not do obvious stuff with conflict of interest/money/cases before them, why would they be putting in any actual work? Especially the ones who are there for prestige alone, their clerks are doing their reading and writing for them.

            Alito and Thomas in particular have said things recently and historically that indicate they’re just phoning it in.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pretty much all authority the Supreme Court has is power it has given itself. It’s long overdue being reigned in.

        • Methylman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Indeed, I posted this on another thread about the court

          Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Smith Adams, September 11, 1804, “but the opinion [Marbury v Madison] which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”

          • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            we were worried that republicans were gonna make the president a dictator appointed exclusively by republicans, and while we were fighting against that they made scotus a dictator appointed exclusively by republicans

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That had to do with size of the court.

        Constitution says it’s a lifetime appointment, though.

        Can have all the rules you want, which the justices are free to ignore because the Constitution says it’s a lifetime seat.

        • mriguy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You just have to be creative. Pass a law saying holding a Supreme Court seat for more than 20 years is a capital crime.

          • APassenger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That would be unconstitutional and ruled that way, too. The law cannot take away a thing guaranteed by the Constitution (the lifetime appointment).

            There would need to be an impeachment or amendment. Or court-packing.

            • mriguy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It would be evil and unethical, yes, but not unconstitutional. They would still be justices right up until their execution, so it’s still a lifetime appointment.

              • APassenger@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It could still run up against tue 8th Amendment, more specifically the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

                Edit to add: being convicted of a capital crime does not guarantee a death sentence. Anything less than death still bumps into a Constitutional issue.

                Coming and going, there’s a likely Constituional challenge. An amendment would almost be easier.

                • mriguy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ah, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that execution is not in and of itself cruel and unusual punishment, as long as you follow procedures and don’t apply it arbitrarily.

                  “ In Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), the Court refused to expand Furman. The Court held the death penalty was not per se unconstitutional as it could serve the social purposes of retribution and deterrence.” (From https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/death_penalty#:~:text=The Supreme Court has ruled,it must be carried out.)

                  In this case, deterring justices from staying on the bench forever. :-)

                  If, however, the passage of this law made SCOTUS decide the throw precedent to the wind (and this is the court to do it) and decide that the death penalty WAS in fact unconstitutional, I’d still take it as a win

                  • APassenger@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not saying a death penalty of any kind is cruel or unusual. I’m saying it would be for this.

                    Give this a look?

                    Most notably:

                    "To measure proportionality, the court must look at several factors. These factors include:

                    • The severity of the offense
                    • The harshness of the penalty
                    • The sentences imposed on others within the same jurisdiction
                    • The sentences imposed on others in different jurisdictions."

                    I think you think I’m saying one thing, when I’m communicating something less superficial. I’m not saying there cannot be a death penalty.

                    I’m saying if you want that for SCOTUS, it needs to meet the above criteria.

                • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  death penalty isn’t cruel or unusual. scotus said so themselves. they even said a punishment could be cruel as long as it isn’t unusual.

    • 001100 010010@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But will congress enforce the rules? By enforce, I mean using the power of Impeachment and voting to convict under said Article(s) of Impeachment. Otherwise, any rules are pointless. A president can only be prosecuted after leaving office, how do prosecute a sitting supreme court justice who serves for life? Even if you did, they’d still be a sitting justice that can rule from prison since criminal conviction =/= impeachment conviction, and I’d imagine the case could go up to the very court that he/she sit in, and it only takes 4 of their collegues plus their own vote to overturn their own conviction.

      In this political climate, it’s practically impossible to convict a justice under the impeachment procedure.

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        An impeachment is not a criminal trial, the Supreme Court would have no authority to make a decision in an impeachment.

        Impeachment is purely a political tool to remove nefarious actors from the government. So an impeached justice would have his spot on the bench taken away, and then would be a regular citizen who can face trial and imprisonment like any other.

        If they decide to ignore that rule, it’s literally the job the of the president to have them arrested and brought before congress to face their impeachment.

        I would hope if the court tried to play that hand, congress would actually start using their authority and install a new court, but I trust congress to have a spine as much as I trust my 102 year old neighbor to mow his lawn.

        But don’t worry, that would be like the 3rd constitutional crisis we’ve had in 5 years. They’re getting kind of boring now anyway.

        • bemenaker@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The GOP would never give up their own. They proved that with Trump. Trump would have been impeached had McConnell not gone to Trump’s lawyers and told them what they needed to say after the first day of the trial. The Senate left the first day with the mindset of he has to go. McConnell told Trump’s lawyer that even most R Senators were going to impeach him unless the lawyer did exactly this.