Supreme Court and Public Opinion

[David G]

Re: Supreme Court and Public Opinion

Good to have the clarification that you've always agreed with me. I think that what's confusing is, the parts where you've "always said" the same thing I've always said got buried in the many many many posts you made explaining why it's wrong when I said it.

Tom

I think you'd best review the bidding there Tex. It appears that you weren't Reading For Comprehension at the time.

[Nicholas Carey]

Re: Supreme Court and Public Opinion

By definition no power is unlimited by virtue of being enumerated. Would the power to "regulate" the Court justify closing it?

In every case, the question must be answered, does this this particular exercise of this particular power contravene the Constitution?

How could the exercise of a specifically enumerated power possbly "contravene the constitution"?

If the fundamental law gives the Congress the power to regulate the Supreme Court, the Congress may regulate the Court as it sees fit. That power is a leash on the Supreme Court, specifically given to the Congress, and it may be as long or as short as the Congress sees fit.

And if there are competing arguments, decision between them is a judicial function, delegated to the judiciary alone.

To quote Alexender Hamilton in The Federalist, No. 80, on the Judiciary (he's writing about why the Supreme Court gets original jurisdication in cases involving disputes between states, but the same principle applies here):

"The reasonableness of the agency of the national courts in cases in which the State tribunals cannot be supposed to be impartial, speaks for itself. No man ought certainly to be a judge in his own cause, or in any cause in respect to which he has the least interest or bias."

That principle disqualifies the Supreme Court from adjudicating the Congress's power to regulate it.

All this just to rein in Clarence Thomas. If impeachment is difficult, what makes you think a constitutional crisis would be easier?

Clarence Thomas is just one glaring symptom of a larger problem that's been going on since Ronald Reagan. The Supreme Court's lack of any code of ethics is the issue. A basic principle of being a judge is that one should avoid even the faintest whiff of impropriety.

Washington State's Code of Judicial Conduct:

Canon 1: A Judge Shall Uphold and Promote the Independence, Integrity, and Impartiality of the Judiciary, and Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety

Rule 1.2 ("Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary") requires that "A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety," with these comments

• Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.
• A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code.
• Conduct that compromises the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
• The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.

Rule 1.3 ("Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office") states that "A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so."

Pretty self-explanatory, that one.

I would expect that justices of the Supreme Court be held to, at the barest minimum, those same standards of behavior. And if they aren't willing to impose that on themselves, the Congress should do it for them.

[Osborne Russell]

Re: Supreme Court and Public Opinion

How could the exercise of a specifically enumerated power possbly "contravene the constitution"?

By impeding the Court's constitutional function.

If the fundamental law gives the Congress the power to regulate the Supreme Court, the Congress may regulate the Court as it sees fit. That power is a leash on the Supreme Court, specifically given to the Congress, and it may be as long or as short as the Congress sees fit.

Short of impeding the Court's constitutional function.

That principle disqualifies the Supreme Court from adjudicating the Congress's power to regulate it.

"[I]in cases in which the State tribunals cannot be supposed to be impartial ". That's federalism, not separation of powers.

Clarence Thomas is just one glaring symptom of a larger problem that's been going on since Ronald Reagan. The Supreme Court's lack of any code of ethics is the issue. A basic principle of being a judge is that one should avoid even the faintest whiff of impropriety.

Thomas should not have been nominated, much less confirmed; and if he had any notion of his duty, he'd have resigned years ago. Who nominated him? Bush senior, who said, "Has nothing to do with color, "he's simply the most qualified man."

I would expect that justices of the Supreme Court be held to, at the barest minimum, those same standards of behavior. And if they aren't willing to impose that on themselves, the Congress should do it for them.

By impeachment. But the political pressure for it can't build if people don't understand the necessity, which they won't, if they are misled by journalists.

[skuthorp]

Re: Supreme Court and Public Opinion

And the present ideological congressional impass means that the present corrupt cabal will continue to sabotage America's judicial reputation from the top.

[Osborne Russell]

Re: Supreme Court and Public Opinion

And the present ideological congressional impass means that the present corrupt cabal will continue to sabotage America's judicial reputation from the top.

The Cabal is morally corrupt, which is the cause of the ideological battle. They mean to sabotage not just the courts, but the entire government, and finally the republic.

Keith says there's nothing in particular one has to believe in order to be an American. That would mean that the cabal of saboteurs is not a moral enemy; that the battle is mere politics.

It must increasingly turn criminal. Judges and lawyers stand in the way:

549481fb4fc45a8b41b81f90bd791860cc-jack-smith.rhorizontal.w700.jpg

From 2008 to 2010, Smith worked as Investigation Coordinator for the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. In that position, he oversaw cases against government officials and militia members accused of war crimes and genocide.

On May 7, 2018, Smith was named to a four-year term as chief prosecutor for the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague, investigating war crimes committed in the Kosovo War, including the case of Salih Mustafa. He took up the post on September 11, 2018, and was appointed to a second term on May 8, 2022.

-- wikipedia

“If I were the sort of person who could be cowed … I would find another line of work,” he told the New York Times.

Smith is known to enjoy biking and has completed more than 100 triathlons and at least nine Ironman competitions around the world — including in Germany, Brazil and Canada — despite saying in a 2018 interview that he “could not swim a length of a pool until my mid-thirties.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/09/jack-smith-special-counsel-trump/

And now he is prosecuting Donald Trump. He's a lawyer.

[Osborne Russell]

Re: Supreme Court and Public Opinion

Put people like him on the bench and you will see some S. That's the face you'll get when you offer him the stuff Ketanji Brown took.

[skuthorp]

Re: Supreme Court and Public Opinion

"The Cabal is morally corrupt, which is the cause of the ideological battle. They mean to sabotage not just the courts, but the entire government, and finally the republic."
Which is my point, the ex Pres., the trumpist congress persons and the corrupted SC are the cabal.

[Osborne Russell]

Re: Supreme Court and Public Opinion

"The Cabal is morally corrupt, which is the cause of the ideological battle. They mean to sabotage not just the courts, but the entire government, and finally the republic."
Which is my point, the ex Pres., the trumpist congress persons and the corrupted SC are the cabal.

The entire Court is not corrupt, see, e.g. Roberts refusing the Bible. And in any case, the institution is not "broken" and ipso facto not entitled to its prestige because one of them, or all of them, are corrupt.

You seem to say that if - after the revolution, or whatever -- we constituted a Court with a different name, and different members, the problems would go away. It wouldn't. Worse, if you abolished the role of the judiciary. The judiciary is an independent function of the state, i.e. of legitimate popular sovereignty, i.e. separation of powers, under the principles of the Enlightenment. See Montesquieu, The Lamp Of Learning.

Blues are not in a position to fault Reds for not knowing this.

[skuthorp]

Re: Supreme Court and Public Opinion

Osborne
Your SC judiciary is appointed by politicians, and therein lies the problem as has been demonstrated time and again. Your, and our politicians are mostly picked by small numbers of political party members, or parachuted in. I rather like your method of conventions picking the candidates though, despite the success of donald. And your press is, as is ours, is tainted by the Murdoch influence.
I did not mean to say that all the judges were corrupt, or to be more accurate overly influenced by their own politics to the point that their opinions are tainted. Probably not the best choices.

[Osborne Russell]

Re: Supreme Court and Public Opinion

Osborne
Your SC judiciary is appointed by politicians, and therein lies the problem as has been demonstrated time and again.

Who appoints yours? Angels? Who removes your judges?

[skuthorp]

Re: Supreme Court and Public Opinion

"The Australian Constitution gives the Governor-General the power to appoint High Court of Australia judges. The Governor-General does this on the advice of the Australian Government.
In practice, the Prime Minister—on the recommendation of the Attorney-General (the minister responsible for legal issues) and Cabinet—chooses the person to be appointed. The Attorney-General consults with the attorneys-general of state governments, and with senior judges and lawyers before a decision is made."

The opposition and minor parties are also consulted.
So far the extreme political and religious partisanship seen in America has not tainted the process.

Same process for removal, but we do have a retirement age, 70.