Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Stacyhs]

Justice Alito claiming Congress has no power over the SC:

Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to advance the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, which seeks to impose on the court disclosure rules as strict as those governing members of the House and the Senate.

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito said. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

It is unusual for a justice to comment so definitively on the constitutionality of legislation, especially when bills are under consideration, and any law that is passed could come before the court.

The Journal article, headlined “Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court’s Plain-Spoken Defender,” was notable for another reason: It was written in part by David B. Rivkin Jr., a Washington lawyer well-known in conservative legal circles, who has an upcoming case before the court. Rivkin parenthetically disclosed that in the piece, writing that he and his law partner Andrew Grossman represent a couple in Moore v. U.S., a tax dispute the Supreme Court will hear in the coming term.

Well, now...isn't that just convenient?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If not Congress, then what?

Or is Alito's position that the Supreme Court is above the Constitution?

 

[Stacyhs]

If not Congress, then what?

Or is Alito's position that the Supreme Court is above the Constitution?

No, not above the Constitution but the Congress cannot regulate the SC because that it not specifically stated in the C.

 

[Random]

No, not above the Constitution but the Congress cannot regulate the SC because that it not specifically stated in the C.

Sure it is.

Article III Section 2:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Shouldn't a Supreme Court Justice know this stuff?

 

[quadraginta]

Sure it is.

Article III Section 2:


Shouldn't a Supreme Court Justice know this stuff?

Not if he doesn't want to.

 

[Stacyhs]

Sure it is.

Article III Section 2:


Shouldn't a Supreme Court Justice know this stuff?

There is controversy over how to interpret Section 2's “Exceptions and Regulations Clause”:

Article III, Section 2 By Judith Resnik and Kevin C. Walsh

A huge puzzle is how to read the part of Section 2 providing that the Supreme Court “shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under Such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” This “Exceptions and Regulations Clause” has given rise to disputes over the extent of congressional control over the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Does it authorize Congress to eliminate the possibility of appellate review in the Supreme Court for entire categories of cases—such as about school busing? Abortion? Same-sex marriage? Religion? And what authority might Congress have to craft analogous limitations on the jurisdiction of federal trial courts?
One account thinks of Article III as guaranteeing federal judicial authority, while another interpretation understands Article III to permit a great deal of congressional control over jurisdiction. Many scholars believe that the Constitution provides the most protection for the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, which seems odd from our current perspective, given how small this aspect of the Court’s work has turned out to be. Other limits on congressional incursions, on some views, come from “external” sources—that is, other parts of the Constitution, such as the Fifth Amendment’s protection of “due process” before deprivations of life, liberty, or property can occur, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

A third is about whether Congress has to give jurisdiction or whether the Constitution automatically provides it, and/or what kinds of limits Congress can impose.

 

[Lurch]

As a Canuckistanian I am no Constitutional scholar. My naive starting point in trying to suss out the power dynamic among and between the three Branches would be this. That Branch whose members are most directly elected by the People might have primacy, innat least certain respects. The House members are elected by the People, whereas the SC Justices are a step removed, they being appointed by the Executive (under advise and consent of the Senate.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rock paper scissors, it seems like a no brainer what the original drafters of the Constitution had in mind. But it's like the Bible, you can find something in it to support whatever belief you want.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Rock paper scissors, it seems like a no brainer what the original drafters of the Constitution had in mind. But it's like the Bible, you can find something in it to support whatever belief you want.

A True Originalist^TM doesn't need the stinkin' text of the Constitution to tell them what the Founders wanted.

 

[Random]

A True Originalist^TM doesn't need the stinkin' text of the Constitution to tell them what the Founders wanted.

Exactly. The founding fathers wanted a small, unelected, unaccountable, group of political appointees with lifetime veto authority over anything the President or Congress might do.

 

[Stacyhs]

Exactly. The founding fathers wanted a small, unelected, unaccountable, group of political appointees with lifetime veto authority over anything the President or Congress might do.

I wonder how many of the Founders expected, or would have approved, women, non-Caucasians, and non- Christians to be SC Justices?

 

[ahhell]

Never mind

 

[ZiprHead]

Sure it is.

Article III Section 2:


Shouldn't a Supreme Court Justice know this stuff?

I wish I could send a "Like" to this post.

 

[Stacyhs]

I wish I could send a "Like" to this post.

Except, as I posted above, there is controversy on how that section is interpreted. Conservatives like Alito have a very different take on it than more liberal judges do.

 

[ZiprHead]

Clarence Thomas RV Financed By Rich Health Care Executive In Least Shocking Development Ever

The Times looked at Title records on the RV and discovered that the vehicle — purchased while Thomas sat on the Supreme Court — was in whole or in part financed by health care executive Anthony Welters. It will shock you not at all to learn that this was not disclosed and the terms remain entirely opaque.

“Here is what I can share. Twenty-five years ago, I loaned a friend money, as I have other friends and family. We’ve all been on one side or the other of that equation. He used it to buy a recreational vehicle, which is a passion of his,” Welters told the Times in a statement.

No… this is what you chose to share. Just because he worked in health care does not make these health care records. Welters could share whatever he wants, but he’s making the affirmative choice to remain vague, noting only that “the loan was satisfied” which is pointedly not “paid off” like normal people would say in a normal conversation.

A $280,000 motor home.

 

[dann]

Harlan Crow is not the only one!

“CNN This Morning” talks to ProPublica reporter Brett Murphy about his in-depth report on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ lavish lifestyle. CNN legal analyst Elie Honig weighs in. #CNN #News
Justice Roberts wrote 'condescending' letter to Senate when asked to testify about ethics (CNN on YouTube, Aug 10, 2023 - 9:09 min.)

The fullest accounting yet shows how Thomas has secretly reaped the benefits from a network of wealthy and well-connected patrons that is far more extensive than previously understood.
Clarence Thomas' 38 Vacations: The Other Billionaires Who Have Treated the Supreme Court Justice to Luxury Travel (ProPublica, Aug 10, 2023)

 

[TragicMonkey]

"I'm not taking advantage of my position in order to attain luxurious living through bribery and corruption," explained Thomas from his golden palanquin floating gently in a pool of finest cognac. "These are all ordinary, non-reportable items." As he spoke tiny diamonds sprayed out of his mouth and rained down, gently tinkling upon the ivory tiled floor. "Just because I live a lifestyle beyond the wildest dreams of Nero and Louis XIV combined (would you like to see Louis XIV? I have his preserved corpse in a glass case in my Amber Room) doesn't mean it's not all absolutely honest." He then pressed a button to rotate his enormous mansion forty-five degrees so he could enjoy the view of his herd of champion racehorses nibbling on artisan grapes from the best of his five vinyards.

 

[shemp]

"I'm not taking advantage of my position in order to attain luxurious living through bribery and corruption," explained Thomas from his golden palanquin floating gently in a pool of finest cognac. "These are all ordinary, non-reportable items." As he spoke tiny diamonds sprayed out of his mouth and rained down, gently tinkling upon the ivory tiled floor. "Just because I live a lifestyle beyond the wildest dreams of Nero and Louis XIV combined (would you like to see Louis XIV? I have his preserved corpse in a glass case in my Amber Room) doesn't mean it's not all absolutely honest." He then pressed a button to rotate his enormous mansion forty-five degrees so he could enjoy the view of his herd of champion racehorses nibbling on artisan grapes from the best of his five vinyards.

You should be writing for The Onion.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

In a better world Congress would have Thomas riding the appellate circuit in a rented Kia Soul staying at Motel 6 with only a $20 per diem until he retired.

 

[ZiprHead]

"I know this is a controversial view, but I'm willing to say it," Alito said in the interview published in the Journal's opinion section. "No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period."