Except for the fact that the judiciary is subject to Congressional oversight, as Congress is responsible for creating the court system, funding the courts, and can impeach judges. There is no legitimate argument that judges are immune to Congressional subpoenas.
Under your interpretation, Congress couldn't require a justice being impeached to show up for the trial.
The GOP is the pro-corruption party at this point. It operates more like organized crime than a political party. Almost every move they’ve pushed for in the last decade+ has been to strip away ethics requirements or make it legally harder to actually prosecute corruption/bribery. I guess it shouldn’t be surprising to learn the impetus wasn’t some high brow legal theorizing, but actually that some of these “conservative” justices had their hands out the whole time.
Nah, that's an exercise of a defined power, not oversight. And of course even then you can't compel attendance, but you can convict in absentia. But attendance at an impeachment trial, which is a defined power, it's far different from a generalized subpoena
I dont think the checks and balances of our system are as well defined as you think they are, most of them exist because the various branches defined them for themselves and asserted them over other branches, not because they are explicit in the text of the Constitution. Congress could absolutely assert more control over the judiciary if they were inclined to do so.
I don't take it as disrespect, but it's perfectly coherent to me. And to wpb, true, but that's the way it is. I didn't mean to suggest it was perfectly defined and irrefutable. If you look at my first post on the issue, I think I used a qualifying term. Almost all the Constitutional law is based upon vibes and implications. But if we're talking about what can happen or should happen here, it matters, unfortunately. I'll see if I can find a tweet I bookmarked but I think I posted here before but that this reminds me of
Here’s Steve Vladeck going your way as a matter of history. I am on a hold list for his book when it comes in. I don’t wanna put out the money, but I may. Either way, looking forward to reading. But I don’t know that that answers the question we’re debating, which is the issue in 2023. As I think he concedes based upon all the tweets and Substack postings and podcasts I’ve been listening to as he promotes his book (big fan), a lot changed over time. Now you may say that proves your point about the way the original text should be read, but in all types of areas of constitutional law, most specifically presidential power vis-à-vis Congress, we now look at the power relationships far differently than we did, even if we didn’t change the original text.
Just broke discipline and preordered Vladeck. B&N 25% preorder discount did it. Only $14.24 for ebook, well worth it. That will illuminate
One would hope the scotus is not above the law and that they are accountable to no one. Yes, in theory they can be impeached, but that will never happen. There need to be other means to hold them accountable to legal and ethical standards.
I agree there needs to be, I'm just not sure it exists. Our whole Constitutional structure is based on presumptions that barely stood the test of time. Impeachment and removal it's about the only disciplinary system that I think is available, though obviously others disagree. It certainly has been the way we've interpreted the relationship between the branches the last few decades. But it may well have been stretched beyond all workability. Obviously it permits rampant corruption now. But since that structure disproportionately favors one side, and since you need their cooperation to change things, it likely won't happen in the short-term. Unless and until it appears that the balance of the courts could change, they will never want to reform anything. Their appetite for limiting power only arises when they are on the other side of that power
Not taking either side of this debate but here is an article saying that Politico's story was full of holes. After reading both articles I think this is a nothing burger. Politico's Neil Gorsuch Hit Continues To Delegitimize SCOTUS Yet, one of Politico’s central insinuations is that Gorsuch was trying to conceal this transaction because he “did not report the identity of the purchaser.” And it’s true that the nominee didn’t fill out the “Identity of buyer/seller” column for the estate transaction — or, for that matter, on any other income. I went back and looked at all the disclosure forms of Supreme Court Justices in 2017, and none of them made a single notation in that column for any transaction. And, as far as I can tell, that line has never seen as much as a scribble from any justice in any year. Politico is holding Gorsuch to a completely new standard. The piece also goes onto claim that Gorsuch “didn’t indicate that there had been a real estate sale or a purchaser.” This is just false. On the very first page of the disclosure, Gorsuch notes that he was a member of the “Walden Group, LLC,” right next to the words “mountain property.” On the next page, he lists the specifics.
Don’t worry, everything is fine. The USSC says so. Supreme Court on ethics issues: Not broken, no fix needed
The interesting thing is, Alito inadvertently admitted that they have a legitimacy crisis by speculating that the mifepristone (sp?) order might not be followed by the federal government. No clearer admission that the Court lacks legitimacy than speculating and then dissenting opinion that your order might not be followed
right? So are they they USSC, one of the three branches of the fed govt, stewards of the constitution and upholders of the rule of law or are they just a bunch of stooges in black robes who are accountable to no one?
