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.

  • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    331 year ago

    The Judiciary Act of 1869 sets the size of the Supreme Court at 9. Congress would have to pass a law to make that happen.

    In order:

    The Republican controlled House won’t vote for it.

    Republicans in the Senate would filibuster it.

    Democrats in the Senate will never get rid of the filibuster because they love their procedural excuse for breaking campaign promises.

    • Pantsofmagic
      link
      fedilink
      211 year ago

      Yes but according to Alito, Congress has no power over the supreme court so that act is moot and anyone can just make up a number.

      • I didn’t think about that. If Congress can’t set the number of justices, then the law currently setting it at 9 is illegal.

        I think you’re actually right, people can just make up a number and go with it. If the President and Senate agree to 500 justices, and Alito is correct, then there are 500 justices. If both later decide they only want 3 justices, then 497 of them are fired. There is no legal limit, which means it literally can be any number as long as the president nominates and the Senate confirms.

        Brilliant find!