Justice Alito To Whiny Congressional Democrats: Stay In Your Lane

In case you’ve missed it, wackadoodle Congressional Democrats and all their little minion have been whining about the Supreme Court and Demanding a code of ethics and other stuff (though, they didn’t say anything about Sotomayor’s sweetheart deals and such)

From the article

Justice Samuel Alito says Congress lacks the power to impose a code of ethics on the Supreme Court, making him the first member of the court to take a public stand against proposals in Congress to toughen ethics rules for justices in response to increased scrutiny of their activities beyond the bench.

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it. No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period,” Alito said in an interview he gave to the Wall Street Journal opinion pages. An account of the interview, which the paper said took place in New York in early July, was published Friday.

Democrats last week pushed Supreme Court ethics legislation through a Senate committee, though the bill’s prospects in the full Senate are dim.

Look, the courts have their own code of ethics, but, if Congress is allowed to regulate SCOTUS, then they are no longer an independent branch of the federal government. There are checks and balances, there are ways to deal with serious criminal violations, but, the Court does not answer to Congress, especially partisan boobs attempting to create an issue where one doesn’t exist because the Court is very much Conservative leaning.

Since a goodly chunk of the Congress critters slurring Alito are lawyers, you’d think they’d know this. They do, but they do not care, nor do many of the peons having snit fits. Like AOC, who says Alito is calling himself a king, but should probably focus on her own ethics violations.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “Justice Alito To Whiny Congressional Democrats: Stay In Your Lane”

  1. Conservative Beaner says:

    Congress should worry about it’s own ethics problems before worrying about SCOTUS.

  2. L'Roy White says:

    Congress needs to worry about the communists NATO American thugs and races in its own ranks they need to worry about organizations like the Black Caucus et cetera we don’t need racists all over the place. America is past racism the only people caring about racism are leftist practicing anti white leftist racism. And it’s way beyond time to throw out all the anti American people out of Congress and that includes the fuckin squad cauz they’re nothing but commie pigs.

    America for Americans no more of this bull crap about race or religion or immigrants or any of the other BS America’s here for America. If you don’t freaking like it leave.

  3. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    The SCROTUS Code of Ethics permits Justices to receive expensive gifts (tuition, luxury vacations, private airfare) from billionaires without disclosure.

    It’s unlikely that billionaires are trying to bribe the Court on any particular case, but highly likely they want the Court’s continued favor of the super wealthy.

    It’s a good investment, if unseemly.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      You mean like Brandon, porkchop?

      Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Article 1, Section 9, states, “No person holding any office of profit or trust
        under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

        Read all about it, smellybutt!

  4. Ken Mitchell says:

    But to be honest, the Constitution doesn’t grant the Supreme Court the power to do much of ANYTHING. All the SC’s power and authority come from the Marbury vs Madison case, and various misinterpretations of that in the years following.

  5. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: There are checks and balances, there are ways to deal with serious criminal violations

    So, Congress can regulate the Supreme Court. To assert that there is no check on the Supreme Court undermines the notion of checks and balances.

    While the Constitution created the Supreme Court, the seats and funding are created by Congress. Unless the Supreme Court implements an enforceable code of conduct, Congress could simply cut funding to the Supreme Court, or change the number of its members.

    William Teach: Like AOC, who says Alito is calling himself a king, but should probably focus on her own ethics violations.

    But the emails! That doesn’t address Alito’s claim that he is not accountable.

    You undermine your own argument when you point to an article about the House Office of Congressional Ethics and the Congressional Code of Official Conduct.

    • alanstorm says:

      So, Congress can regulate the Supreme Court. To assert that there is no check on the Supreme Court undermines the notion of checks and balances.

      Reading comprehension issues again, Zach? Checks and balances are not regulation. The SC is an independent branch of government – as Teach stated, if Congress is allowed to regulate SCOTUS, then they are no longer an independent branch of the federal government.

      Try to use your brain for something other than to keep your ears from slamming together.

    • alanstorm says:

      That doesn’t address Alito’s claim that he is not accountable.

      Accountable to who?

      You undermine your own argument when you point to an article about the House Office of Congressional Ethics and the Congressional Code of Official Conduct.

      How? They are Congressional offices affecting Congress. This says nothing about one branch regulating another.

      • Zachriel says:

        alanstorm: if Congress is allowed to regulate SCOTUS, then they are no longer an independent branch of the federal government.

        Except Congress already regulates the Supreme Court and the Executive branch.

        alanstorm: Accountable to who?

        To the law. You’re basically arguing that Congress can’t pass a law against the Supreme Court accepting bribes.

        alanstorm: They are Congressional offices affecting Congress.

        That’s right. Congress has an enforceable code of ethics. The Supreme Court should too.

        alanstorm: This says nothing about one branch regulating another.

        All branches are mutually regulating. How did you think checks and balances worked?

  6. Up Yours says:

    Fucking commie leftists pissing their pants about total control constantly being just beyond their grasp.
    Cry harder, motherfuckers.

  7. James Lewis says:

    Zack:

    “To assert that there is no check on the Supreme Court undermines the notion of checks and balances.”

    But if Congress can force the SC to do something, what is the check on Congress?

    • david7134 says:

      Congress can check the Supremes by passing amendments. Do realize that the Z people are a bunch of high school kids with shit for brains. They are all budding liberal lawyers in a debate club.

    • Zachriel says:

      James Lewis: But if Congress can force the SC to do something, what is the check on Congress?

      Congress can’t force the Supreme Court to do just anything. They can enact anti-corruption measures consistent with the “necessary and proper” clause of the U.S. Constitution. If that is ruled impermissible or simply inadvisable, then the Congress can cut funds to the Supreme Court (other than the Justices’ salaries) or change the number of seats on the Supreme Court.

      david7134: Congress can check the Supremes by passing amendments.

      Sure, but the Constitution already has some checks and balances built in, as noted.

      • James Lewis says:

        Dear Zack:

        So Congress, under the control of a Leftie Demo party can change the size, issue “necessary and proper” laws….

        Like I said, where’s the check on Congress?

        • Zachriel says:

          James Lewis: Like I said, where’s the check on Congress?

          Any new law has to be signed by the Executive (unless there is an override) and is subject to approval by the courts as constitutional, including a law imposing a code of ethics. If the Supreme Court ruled that such a law was unconstitutional, Congress could cut funding (other than the Justices’ salaries) or change the number of seats on the court. There is a balance to be struck between the branches, and the Supreme Court knows it. To avoid further erosion of their credibility, the Court could just decide on a binding code of ethics.

          Meanwhile, Alito was given a friendly interview and exposure in a major paper by someone with a case before the Court.

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    Impeachment is the procedure in which a legislative body, like the United States Congress, can punish or remove government officials from their positions. This is a way for the legislative branch to check and balance the executive and judicial branches and police itself as well. As of December 2019, there have been 66 federal judges or Supreme Court Justices investigated for impeachment.


    Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

Pirate's Cove