Justice Sam Alito gave another interview to The Wall Street Journal. Montana Pride will proceed while the state's anti-drag law is on hold. And: The first post-303 Creative case might not be a case.
But that doesn't mean that Congress could not repeal the statute that lets the Supreme Court pick its own docket and instead require that it go back to the old practice of hearing every appeal from the circuit courts.
Nor does it mean that Congress is unable to eliminate all funding for law clerks and secretaries.
And it also wouldn't mean that Congress couldn't repurpose that big marble building across the street from the Capitol and instead require that the justices here their cases in that dank dark room in the capital basement.
In other words, lots more cases, no assistance from clerks or secretaries, and each justice maintaining chambers in their own home (out of their own pocket), just as was the case in the late 1800s.
Surely Justice Alito would be fully supportive of returning to these older practices which would keep him and his fellow justices much more busy than they currently are.
And who knows -- maybe require a return of the practice of riding circuit?
But I'm simply musing on what things Congress could do to the justices that Alito and company could not argue were beyond the scope of Congress' authority.
[Still confused why you opened the way you did then, but, moving on.] Yes, those other things are things that they could do — and there is more. But, those are all more extreme measures than ethics rules, which aren't even going to happen themselves in this Congress. And *that* is my point ... as I wrote:
This statement is a not a moment where he forgot what the Constitution says. It is, rather, another moment where he can, rhetorically, stick out his tongue and say, “Nah nah, who’s gonna stop me?”
Judges with agendas undermine liberty and justice for all. Justices Alito and Thomas lead the way in placing their own eccentric views above the law. It is not right. Congress can do something about this, but it will take time and voters.
What I find interesting is that Alito was unanimously confirmed by the Senate, even though his rulings on abortion, guns, religious beliefs, etc were very well known to anyone who spent a day reviewing his record.
How is it that Democrats happily confirmed him without a moment's concern for his future rulings or his foreseeable position on precedent?
For the Supreme Court, Alito was confirmed 58-42, and was (unsuccessfully) filibustered before that. (He was confirmed unanimously by voice vote for the Third Circuit. But, he had not been a judge before then.)
Hmmmm...
I suppose maybe Alito is right.
But that doesn't mean that Congress could not repeal the statute that lets the Supreme Court pick its own docket and instead require that it go back to the old practice of hearing every appeal from the circuit courts.
Nor does it mean that Congress is unable to eliminate all funding for law clerks and secretaries.
And it also wouldn't mean that Congress couldn't repurpose that big marble building across the street from the Capitol and instead require that the justices here their cases in that dank dark room in the capital basement.
In other words, lots more cases, no assistance from clerks or secretaries, and each justice maintaining chambers in their own home (out of their own pocket), just as was the case in the late 1800s.
Surely Justice Alito would be fully supportive of returning to these older practices which would keep him and his fellow justices much more busy than they currently are.
And who knows -- maybe require a return of the practice of riding circuit?
Alito is not right.
I completely agree.
But I'm simply musing on what things Congress could do to the justices that Alito and company could not argue were beyond the scope of Congress' authority.
[Still confused why you opened the way you did then, but, moving on.] Yes, those other things are things that they could do — and there is more. But, those are all more extreme measures than ethics rules, which aren't even going to happen themselves in this Congress. And *that* is my point ... as I wrote:
This statement is a not a moment where he forgot what the Constitution says. It is, rather, another moment where he can, rhetorically, stick out his tongue and say, “Nah nah, who’s gonna stop me?”
Judges with agendas undermine liberty and justice for all. Justices Alito and Thomas lead the way in placing their own eccentric views above the law. It is not right. Congress can do something about this, but it will take time and voters.
What I find interesting is that Alito was unanimously confirmed by the Senate, even though his rulings on abortion, guns, religious beliefs, etc were very well known to anyone who spent a day reviewing his record.
How is it that Democrats happily confirmed him without a moment's concern for his future rulings or his foreseeable position on precedent?
For the Supreme Court, Alito was confirmed 58-42, and was (unsuccessfully) filibustered before that. (He was confirmed unanimously by voice vote for the Third Circuit. But, he had not been a judge before then.)
Thank you for clarifying. The source I relied on was completely inaccurate, but I should have double-checked.
I feel better about the Senate Democrats, at least those in office during Alito's confirmation.
Thanks again for setting the record straight.