Senator Chris Murphy has dismissed claims by the supreme court justice, Samuel Alito, that the Senate has āno authorityā to create a code of conduct for the court as āstunningly wrongā.
The Connecticut Democrat made those remarks in an interview on CNNās State of the Union on Sunday, adding that Alito āshould know that more than anyone else because his seat on the supreme court exists only because of an act passed by Congressā.
āIt is Congress that establishes the number of justices on the supreme court,ā Murphy said. āIt is Congress that has passed in the past requirements for justices to disclose certain information, and so it is just wrong on the facts to say that Congress doesnāt have anything to do with the rules guiding the supreme court.ā
I mean itās pretty clear to me. The constitution says that Congress writes all laws, and nothing about the courts is noted in powers congress does not have.
Then about the Supreme Court, it says that justices shall serve during āgood behaviorā. Who could possibly define what that means legally besides congress?
Seems pretty clear that Congress could pass many different types of laws on SCOTUS that would be constitutional. Whether that is adding more justices, setting term limits, or creating and ethics standard.
Alito is a moron. The SC is to decide things between states and other high level topics. Itās not an untouchable organization.
The power to determine what laws are or are not Constitutional, that the Supreme Court wields, is also not in the Constitution.
It comes from a precedent set by John Marshall.
We could show them what originalism really means by revoking that power and replacing it with the will of the people.
We have loads of historical context as to what āgood behaviorā means in terms of public office from the era in which the Constitution was written in. The textās intent is clear to scholars and experts.
Itās also clear that the Legislature cannot write a law which restricts or limits another branchās power or authority absent explicit language in the Constitution.
Iām not sure what your thought process is here, but your comment reads like someone who saw the headline and that is precisely where your expertise in the field ends.
Well thatās not true at all, unless you think that the Supreme Court deciding something is āunconstitutionalā is unconstitutional, being that itās not explicitly stated in the constitution, and the supreme uses it regularly to limit the power and authority of congress
Alito nor Murphy make specific references.
Murphy is correct that Congress has written laws over the decades about how SCOTUS is run, I guess without you making any sort of citation I wonder where your expertise is coming from?
What does good behavior mean if itās so known and clear?
Have changes to the court via Congress in the past been illegal power grabs?
Besides commenting on who you think I am, you hardly added to the discussion.