Senator Chris Murphy has dismissed claims by the supreme court justice, Samuel Alito, that the Senate has ā€œno authorityā€ to create a code of conduct for the court as ā€œstunningly wrongā€.

The Connecticut Democrat made those remarks in an interview on CNNā€™s State of the Union on Sunday, adding that Alito ā€œshould know that more than anyone else because his seat on the supreme court exists only because of an act passed by Congressā€.

ā€œIt is Congress that establishes the number of justices on the supreme court,ā€ Murphy said. ā€œIt is Congress that has passed in the past requirements for justices to disclose certain information, and so it is just wrong on the facts to say that Congress doesnā€™t have anything to do with the rules guiding the supreme court.ā€

  • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I really think this is something that could be argued. You seem to be arguing for a strict interpretation of the constitution rather than a lot of ones we see today that have changed repeatedly and/or made more modern interpretations. A strict interpretation would also mean that the supreme court doesnā€™t have the power to decide if laws are constitutional or not as thatā€™s not specifically in the constitution nor granted with an amendment.

    https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/

    • mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      Congress shouldnā€™t be able to implement arbitrary rules on the Judicial branch any more than the Executive branch should. Internally, SCOTUS already has self-imposed ethics rules that are suppose to be followed; similar to the ethics rules in Congress passed for itself.

    • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      What do you think judicial power is? The power to hold dinner parties itā€™s? Itā€™s literally the power to interpret the law. Its not written because everyone with half a brain can understand that.

      • kbotc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        Then maybe a super strict ā€œas writtenā€ interpretation of the constitution is dumb.

        • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          Except that is an ā€œas writtenā€ interpretation because it would take intentionally misunderstand to not understand what judicial powers entail. You arenā€™t making a point against anything, just being dumb.