I'm reading the text of this bill by @SeanCasten on reforming the #supremecourt --and indeed the powers of the federal judiciary more broadly--to curb its lawless abuse of power. My jaw is on the floor at how clever it is.
It transfers SCOTUS's appellate jurisdiction to the DC circuit, which will convene a randomly selected panel of judges from the circuit courts to handle appeals & limits injunctions & shadow docket.
#judicialreform #SCOTUS #uspol #uspolitics #reform
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/642/text
I don’t see how simple legislation can inject itself into the processes of the independent judicial branch.
Sounds like it’s too clever by half.
@volkris @SeanCasten If you read the Constitution, you'll see that Congress is vested with immense power over the courts. Just because we haven't used it in a while doesn't change that power.
Independence of the courts does not mean they get to dictate to the other branches what they may and may not do, but that's how that term is abused today--as a synonym for judicial supremacy. There's no more constitutionally ridiculous idea than that.
Well, what exactly do you see in the Constitution that gives the legislative branch immense power over the judicial branch?
That seems like quite a statement in a system of co-equal branches that have checks on each other’s powers!
Please quote.
No Independence of the court does not mean they get to dictate to the other branches what they may or may not do. Anybody who thinks that does not know how courts work.
Courts issue opinions. Nothing more. If we want to all ignore the opinion of the court, well, there we go.
But so many high profile cases before the Supreme Court don’t affect ambassadors, public ministers and councils, or states.
So that clause isn’t all that broad of a grant of power to the Congress over the judiciary.
@volkris @SeanCasten That provision means that the appellate jurisdiction can be entirely removed by Congress, leaving the Court to only hear cases involving ambassadors, public ministers, and states.
@kevinjelliott @volkris Again, Kevin has it right. This clause actually grants quite expansive power to Congress because - as you note - most cases do not involve their Constitutionally-specified jurisdiction. Remember that our "founders intent" for those originalists among was formulated BEFORE Marbury v Madison. Not suggesting we go back that far but the legislative branch has quite expansive Constitutional powers, notwithstanding current practice.
You know, I had forgotten about exactly how that clause worked, so you guys have a good point, and I need to think about that more.
@volkris @kevinjelliott Article 3, Section 2 gives Congress broad latitude over all appellate jurisdiction: "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."