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.

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.

  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    2·
    10 months ago

    SCOTUS has openly and willfully ruled in opposition to the Constitution before

    Their entire argument against abortion is actually explicitly condemned by the 9th amendment.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    And what is the court’s argument with abortion? That there is nothing in the Constitution which enshrines it. They’re directly using the enumerated rights to deny/disparage our other rights. I’m not a lawyer, but this amendment is obvious to understand. SCOTUS saying it doesn’t mean what it does, does not mean it doesn’t mean its plain text.

    This is the fundamental problem with judicial review. It’s obvious that it isn’t in the Constitution, because every other act by the government has a check by the other branches. The idea that one branch can say something final without the other branches having an opportunity to overturn it is fundamentally against our notion of checks and balances. The justices can say the Constitution means the opposite of what it plainly does, and there is no recourse to stop them beyond an amendment – but even then, what’s to stop the justices from blocking that?

    Judicial review is an important ability of the court and one that it needs, but it shouldn’t have been unilaterally granted to the court by itself. There should have been a Constitutional amendment to explicitly enshrine it and outline the necessary checks and balances.

    The Court will see reform. It’s a wretched, undemocratic affront in the eyes of Millennials and Zoomers. Alito is just speeding up the process. They’ve made too many unpopular and tyrannical decisions in our lifetimes with no Constitutional basis.