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.

  • @abraxas@sh.itjust.works
    0•1 year ago

    I made the same point elsewhere in this thread… But in fairness, the Constitution gives them final judicial appeal power (pretty much word-for-word).

    It’s an interestingly thin line that their judicial decision about any dispute is binding. It’s clear they have judicial decision about any dispute of fact. From that, it seems obvious in retrospect that would give them final appeal power on any dispute of law as well. Ironically, that they aren’t the final decisionmaker on State Law seems the oddity based upon the wording of their mandate.

    That’s the point of a judiciary, sadly. If two parties disagree on something relevant, we’re supposed to have a neutral arbitration about which party is correct. One party says “the Constitution does not allow abortions” and the other party says “that’s not how it looks to me”. Lacking congressional action, there’s already relevant law one way or the other and people are disagreeing on which way the law goes. In an ideal world, a “free” country should err any ambiguity on the side of individual freedom, but even then there’s a disagreement on whether a fetus could legally be seen as an individual.

    I think the problem with Marbury is that nobody saw exactly how broken the idea of having one authority to decide “who decides what is true when two parties disagree on the facts?” could extend. As the US court is a Common Law court, I wonder how much of that comes from European judicial style anyway.

      • @abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        1•1 year ago

        Not exactly sure why you had to give that useless reply, but have a nice life.

        EDIT: Also if 4 paragraphs is “so many”, you might need to retake 4th grade :)