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.
That's not really surprising. SCOTUS was designed to be out of reach of the Legislative and Executive branches of government. That's an 8th grade civics level of understanding. If Congress doesn't like it they can impeach.
Uhh…
Article III of the US Constitution would like to have a word with your 8th-grade civics teacher.
It's part of the system of checks and balances. The three branches of government were designed to keep each other in check. It's not working so well in practice, but that's the intention.
Coequal branches of government, that's well below an 8th grade civics understanding. Crazy that people genuinely believe the Supreme Court is untouchable by congress and the executive, who do they think appoints them?
Lobbyists, mostly.
A practice that should be made illegal
It is untouchable by the executive, while congress acting in concert between the house and senate could do literally anything, including abandoning the constitution itself and making a new one.
Not untouchable. But out of reach of the day to day politics of that branch. Congress can Impeach a SCOTUS member if they truly believe that they've done wrong. But the super-majority requirement of impeachment means that it has to be a decision that's above general politics.
The same idea is why only the Senate advises on their appointments. The Senate was believed to be a body that would be above petty politics given that it's members were to be appointed by the legislatures of the states. So the idea of a heavily partisan judge to get appointed was believed to be minimized.
Yes, an 8th grade civics understanding is clear that SCOTUS is an independent branch. But an 8th grade civics understanding should cover checks and balances too. And impeachment is not the only one.
The other ones rely on funding and appointments and lower court mechanics.
How many justices were there at first?
I mean, if you want get into it, the concept of Judicial Review is something the supreme Court made up for itself in 1803.
Sadly the world is not as simple as we're taught in 8th grade. Trying to apply a child like understanding of almost anything in the world doesn't really give a great understanding of the concept.
It's the same issue with people talking about "basic biology" as if it means anything. They'll say their grade school education about sex being male or female is accurate, but in reality it's much more broad then that without even including gender identity.
Anyone making an appeal to a basic understanding of any concept should be instantly dismissed. If there's anything to support it, it doesn't need an appeal to simplicity.
SCOTUS should only be subject to dark money and billionaire "philanthropists".
So then the law that capped SC at 9 people was illegal and void?
No obviously not. And if Congress wanted to pack the court in response to Alitos behavior they'd have that right. But they don't have the right to review his behavior.