If Congress can regulate "good behavior" of the Supreme Court, what exactly is "good behavior"?
Low carbon footprint? Not owning a firearm? Helping out sanctuary cities? Not having had speaking engagements from the Cato Institute or the Federalist Society?
If Congress can impose its definition of good behavior on the Supreme Court, it can subordinate it to its whims and break the separation of powers.
Come on, Dersh. You know as well as any that there are unwritten rules of the Constitution that SCOTUS can rely on to make its case. You state that there is no explicit mention of judicial review in the Constitution, yet SCOTUS invented it in Marbury and relies on it all the time. Similarly, there is no explicit mention of separation of powers, yet SCOTUS uses this all the time. Similarly re: major questions doctrine, anti-commandeering, dormant commerce clause, prudential concerns, etc. What's to prevent SCOTUS from reaching the conclusion that Congress has no power to impose ethics regulations on a co-equal branch of government under separation of powers or some other doctrine that the Constitution implies but doesn't express? SCOTUS jealously guards its power; I have a hard time imagining it would gladly give some of that up to the legislature. How hard will it be for Alito to get four others to follow his reasoning?
None of this is to say that I believe Congress shouldn't (or should) regulate SCOTUS ethics. Just that SCOTUS has immense power to overrule such an action if it so desires. And why should we expect SCOTUS to care about the impacts of one decision on another? Numerous branches of constitutional law are mutually inconsistent. SCOTUS can simply waive this issue away by limiting the impact of its decision to a single case.
This is hardly a review. It's merely Dersh's belief, which has never been tested in court. I'm all for zealous advocacy of one's position. However, I think Dersh does a major disservice to his audience by not pointing out the arguments that would lead to a conclusion other than the one he already favors.
Thank for using the Constitution of the United States as a reference point and not an inconvenience to the political whims of corrupt politicians.
Thank you for clarifying the legality of Alito’s statement
You are 100% correct! The Constitution rules.
If Congress can regulate "good behavior" of the Supreme Court, what exactly is "good behavior"?
Low carbon footprint? Not owning a firearm? Helping out sanctuary cities? Not having had speaking engagements from the Cato Institute or the Federalist Society?
If Congress can impose its definition of good behavior on the Supreme Court, it can subordinate it to its whims and break the separation of powers.
Come on, Dersh. You know as well as any that there are unwritten rules of the Constitution that SCOTUS can rely on to make its case. You state that there is no explicit mention of judicial review in the Constitution, yet SCOTUS invented it in Marbury and relies on it all the time. Similarly, there is no explicit mention of separation of powers, yet SCOTUS uses this all the time. Similarly re: major questions doctrine, anti-commandeering, dormant commerce clause, prudential concerns, etc. What's to prevent SCOTUS from reaching the conclusion that Congress has no power to impose ethics regulations on a co-equal branch of government under separation of powers or some other doctrine that the Constitution implies but doesn't express? SCOTUS jealously guards its power; I have a hard time imagining it would gladly give some of that up to the legislature. How hard will it be for Alito to get four others to follow his reasoning?
None of this is to say that I believe Congress shouldn't (or should) regulate SCOTUS ethics. Just that SCOTUS has immense power to overrule such an action if it so desires. And why should we expect SCOTUS to care about the impacts of one decision on another? Numerous branches of constitutional law are mutually inconsistent. SCOTUS can simply waive this issue away by limiting the impact of its decision to a single case.
Great review and explanations, including for non-experts like myself
This is hardly a review. It's merely Dersh's belief, which has never been tested in court. I'm all for zealous advocacy of one's position. However, I think Dersh does a major disservice to his audience by not pointing out the arguments that would lead to a conclusion other than the one he already favors.
Alito isn't wrong. He offered up audacious lie, like a disciple of Goebbels.
Very mature and not a left-wing hysterical at ll. Speaking of which, Goebbels was a socialist, so you are in the right club
Zingzingzing......