788

Alito wasn’t bluffing: He believes the Supreme Court is above the law (thehill.com)

submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

111 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito no doubt intended to shock the political world when he told interviewers for the Wall Street Journal that “No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

Many observers dismissed his comment out of hand, noting the express language in Article III, establishing the court’s jurisdiction under “such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

But Alito wasn’t bluffing. His recently issued statement, declining to recuse himself in a controversial case, was issued without a single citation or reference to the controlling federal statute. Nor did he mention or adhere to the test for recusal that other justices have acknowledged in similar circumstances. It was as though he declared himself above the law.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] DemBoSain@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago

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 Supreme Court is regulated by Congress except as itemized in the first sentence of this paragraph. They are also supposed to be the first and only court to see cases involving a state or other public official (ministers).

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

That's not what that means though.

"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."

So for ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court is the original arbiter of truth.

"In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact"

For everything else, some other body is in control and the Supreme Court serves merely as an apellate court. If you don't like how the original body has ruled, you can appeal that to the Supreme Court.

"with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Congress is that other body, which has no say over ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, everything else Congress does can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

That paragraph doesn't give Congress control over the Supreme Court, it gives the Supreme Court appeallate power over everything Congress does.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

I'm reading this the complete opposite way, that they have to abide by regulations set by Congress.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

Which is why we have a Supreme Court to define what the Constitution means. ;)

this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023

788 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19240 readers

1549 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News