• mechoman444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well someone better regulate their silly asses cuz what they’re doing now is throwing civil rights back to Jim crow.

  • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The branch of government with lifetime appointment can’t be regulated by anyone else?!? LOL

    How convenient!

    The only thing stopping that from happening now is that Democrats are too weak to push the issue.

  • Fisk400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We the people made up the rules and we can change them in any way we want. If the supreme Court has some kind of magic that stops that they are free to deploy that but in the meantime we can assume that they are flesh bags like the rest of us.

    • He means absent a Constitutional amendment. And he’s correct.

      Congress authority is limited to saying what type of cases the court can take and how many justices there are.

      Constitution says they are lifetime appointments. Can’t really attach rules to that. Even if they break the rules, they are still lifetime appointments.

      Only way out is death, retirement, or impeachment. I think only one justice was ever impeached.

      • bemenaker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Congress can impeach Alito and remove him from the bench. So, yes, they have some major muscle to flex. Unfortunately, the GOP is so corrupt, they wouldn’t impeach Alito for for shooting a random stranger on 5th ave and having sex with their corpse., in broad daylight, on live TV.

      • ZombieTheZombieCat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe I’m wrong but I thought the only thing the constitution says about it is “there shall be a supreme court.”

        Regardless, the constitution was created to be amended, and it’s the states that vote on those. You know. That whole democracy thing.

    • zerkrazus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In theory, a few of them should be impeached, tried, convicted, disbarred, removed, & jailed, since lying to Congress under oath is a federal offense I’m pretty sure.

  • CannaVet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “The court has investigated the court and found no wrongdoing on the part of the court”

  • Moyer1666@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You’re wrong Alito, Congress can definitely make rules and laws to regulate you. They have the explicit authority to do that.

    “The court can be trusted to self-regulate”

    That’s bullshit. With your unethical bribes being accepted and the bullshit rulings you’ve been making have proven you’re an incompetent corrupt court.

      • That had to do with size of the court.

        Constitution says it’s a lifetime appointment, though.

        Can have all the rules you want, which the justices are free to ignore because the Constitution says it’s a lifetime seat.

        • mriguy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You just have to be creative. Pass a law saying holding a Supreme Court seat for more than 20 years is a capital crime.

          • APassenger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            That would be unconstitutional and ruled that way, too. The law cannot take away a thing guaranteed by the Constitution (the lifetime appointment).

            There would need to be an impeachment or amendment. Or court-packing.

            • mriguy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It would be evil and unethical, yes, but not unconstitutional. They would still be justices right up until their execution, so it’s still a lifetime appointment.

              • APassenger@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It could still run up against tue 8th Amendment, more specifically the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

                Edit to add: being convicted of a capital crime does not guarantee a death sentence. Anything less than death still bumps into a Constitutional issue.

                Coming and going, there’s a likely Constituional challenge. An amendment would almost be easier.

                • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  death penalty isn’t cruel or unusual. scotus said so themselves. they even said a punishment could be cruel as long as it isn’t unusual.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pretty much all authority the Supreme Court has is power it has given itself. It’s long overdue being reigned in.

        • Methylman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Indeed, I posted this on another thread about the court

          Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Smith Adams, September 11, 1804, “but the opinion [Marbury v Madison] which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”

          • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            we were worried that republicans were gonna make the president a dictator appointed exclusively by republicans, and while we were fighting against that they made scotus a dictator appointed exclusively by republicans

      • flipht@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, these people haven’t even read the laws they’re supposed to be deciding cases on. You expect him to read his own website too? The privilege.

        /s

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem is they can also decide that isn’t what that means, it’s hilariously stupid to be able to do it but they can.

          • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            corrupt scotus justices: we’re strict constitutionalists. if it says it in the constitution, it’s the law. if it doesn’t say it in the constitution, it’s not the law

            the constitution: …well-organized militia…

            corrupt scotus justices: no not like that

            the constitution: …equal protection under the law…

            corrupt scotus justices: no not like that

            the constitution: …against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…

            corrupt scotus justices: no not like that

            the constitution: slavery is legal

            corrupt scotus justices: that’s more what we were thinking…