• Rusticus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    213
    ·
    2 years ago

    Think about this for a second: a Supreme Court justice thinks NO ONE has the power to hold them to an ethical standard. I can think of no better reason to hold them to an ethical standard than that.

    • candyman337@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yeah really, if a justice literally says checks and balances don’t exist, maybe we should listen and respond accordingly. Also maybe we should fire him, and most of the others.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Exactly. Checks and balances motherfucker! We need to swing the scales back into balance so hard. He and Thomas are launched into orbit and never heard from again. Run over by an orbiting Tesla.

    • Erisrand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Congress already has a check against SCOTUS, impeachment. Alito is actually probably right here. It would take a constitutional amendment to create a new lever for congress to pull.

      Which is complete ass because it will never happen. That document is a failure in the 21st century and is holding us back.

  • mindbleach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    2 years ago

    State judiciary: powerless versus their congress.

    Federal judiciary: unquestionable.

    Get the fuck out of our government, you miserable bastard.

    • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 years ago

      I mean term limits aren’t going to fix the problem. They arguably may make them far worse. It then just becomes a job of tactically making sure you secure the election of the executive branch and senate. With senate being the most important since if senate sits on their hands you sort of get a “Scalia situation”. Where there will just be an empty seat until you get executive and senate to agree on a candidate.

        • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Yes but no. I’ll elaborate, there is a concept called a recess appointment where if senate is on recess (which they do twice a year) where the president can fill in a temp until the end of their next session however National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning (2014) basically has allowed the concept of pro forma session as a valid way to disrupt a recess. So what is a pro forma session it is basically a session of senate where the President Pro Tempore (Longest running senator who handles procedure) delegates their job to a singular senator who then calls the session to an end and repeat this every 3 days and bing bang boom. You have a senate who is not on recess but is taking a break

          So in a 5-4 vote, they dictated

          “for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.”

          So while there is technically a system to fill vacant government positions, it has been basically loopholed out of the equation since 2014.

  • Plaid_Kaleidoscooe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    2 years ago

    Then who exactly is supposed to be the check on the courts? Is that not precisely the domain of the legislative wing of govt? That’s like some basic civics shit.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s bullshit, but he’s probably not wrong. The Legislature’s checks on the Judiciary are primarily:

      1. Funding
      2. Congress has the authority to create all courts below SCOTUS and provide for those courts’ jurisdiction
  • TerryMathews@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    2 years ago

    If Congress lacks the authority to regulate the Supreme Court, then certainly they also lack the authority to fund the Supreme Court…

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      It would be, if we elected people who cared more about doing good than they do about increasing their own fortunes.

  • JTode@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is just… wow. The breathtaking arrogance of it.

    It’s not often these swine can actually get a visceral reaction from me anymore, but wow. Time to get back to work on that Novelty Giant Cigar Chopper I’m working on.

  • HR_Pufnstuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 years ago

    Well, as I see it, Mr. Alito… You can either have Congress do it, or you can have an angry mob do it. Which do you prefer?

  • Shotgun_Alice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 years ago

    I feel the supreme court is playing a game of fuck around and find out here. Hate to say it but supreme court ethics has pretty bipartisan support. These people are entrusted to be above that kind of behavior, but it’s already been shown that every member of the court has something to hide. If they’re not willing to self police themselves we will police them ourselves.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      I mean, you should probably walk that back a bit.

      The liberal justices surely aren’t vocal enough about the need for ethics oversight (likely because they’ve been threatened by other justices in the majority and told that if they stay aligned with the fascist judges on some of this that the judges will vote on the side of the actual merit of the cases for some of the “lesser” cases that come through the court".

      There is no room for these blanket false equivalencies though.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 years ago

        Giving in to threats or agreeing to some kind of quid pro quo system would also be corruption. If some justices are threatening others, that should absolutely be exposed and supreme court justices are in one of the best positions to do that exposing.

      • Shotgun_Alice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        Sorry but I think the whole of the supreme court is rotten to the core as it stands, and I think some ethics are in dire need. If you think the liberal justices aren’t getting kickback, sweetheart deals, or vacations from wealthy billionaires, you’re kidding yourself. They’re going to push back on ethics because it might expose the true scale of the corruption in the supreme court. So you can give them a pass if you want, but the whole point of lifetime appointment was to rise above politics and currying favor, and as I see it in my life time the supreme Court has done little to improve people’s lives, but corporations have benefited to a great deal. I don’t think for a moment I think Congress is any better they’re rotten too, but they at least have to report their gifts. Like I said the bear f****** minimum.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 years ago

    There’s a key trick to evaluating statements by the republican justices… re-read anything they say from the lens of they are completely full of shit and have zero integrity.

    These are not serious people. Don’t discuss them as if they are. Tell your own representatives that they need to act on this LOUDLY or they will lose your vote.

    • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Nah, that’s too peaceful and hippie. Let’s pray for Old Testament God and their unimaginable non-eucludean angels who have thousands of eyes and burning wheels and infinite wings with a baby fetus in the core with the absolute most fucked up horrific natural death possible.

  • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 years ago

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    — Article I Section 8 Clause 18 US Constitution

    The Constitution indicates that Congress gets to set the laws that are necessary for proper execution of all the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

    • kingthrillgore@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      IF THIS ISN’T GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT I DON’T KNOW WHAT IS

      Alito basically admitted to conspiracy against the government

    • elscallr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      If Congress wishes to change the direction of the Court they have the ability to do so by amending the Constitution.

      • what_was_not_said@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 years ago

        The Constitution declares that the House has the sole power to impeach, and the Senate the power to try the case. It does not limit the scope of such impeachments. Alito is just as subject to impeachment as any other member of the Federal Government.