If Barrett doesn't recuse from election cases the House should investigate ethics violations

[Buckeyeblue]

I suggested this a few threads but wanted to throw it out there for thoughts. I think typically such an investigation would be DOA but in this instance, given the timing around her nomination and confirmation (and recent comments by Trump and McConnell) I think it brings up interesting questions.

And I think given some of Thomas's wife's recent Facebook posts, he should have to recuse as well. And we could open an ethics investigation against him as well.

These types of hearings could lay the groundwork work for legislation to maybe change the way the SC operates.

[Sherman A1]

1. Might be worth a shot

Who knows.

[FBaggins]

2. I already replied on the other thread... but I'll add this

Guess who gets to weigh in on "legislation to maybe change the way the SC operates"?

[Miguelito Loveless]

3. Yep

They simply declare any law that imposes such standards on the court to be “unconstitutional”.

[Mr. Ected]

7. But they would need a case to hear with this fact scenario at issue

Those kind of cases may not just come along every minute.

[Miguelito Loveless]

14. A suit will be filed by the GOP

should any attempt be made to change the court. It will be filed before a friendly judge.

[mopinko]

8. not after jan 20.

then the good guys hold the scales.

[FBaggins]

11. I doubt it

Not doubt that Biden will win or that we’ll control the Senate. But it’s unlikely that the balance on the court will be changed unless/until a conservative retires or dies.

I don’t think the filibuster is going anywhere... and thus, neither is the size of the court.

[lagomorph777]

15. Nope. It's explicitly in the Constitution, Article 3. Congress decides.

SCROTUS can say anything they want, but they don't get to decide.

[FBaggins]

16. No it doesn't

Article III gives Congress much greater power regarding inferior courts.

Congress has the power to change the size of the court... or in some cases the jurisdiction of the court... but they can't set up a system whereby they get to decide which of them can and can't hear given cases.

[lagomorph777]

17. I had understood the question to be about the size/jusridiction.

I agree - Congress doesn't tell individual Justices which cases they may hear.

[beachbumbob]

4. look at the constitution, the House really can;t do any legislation that effects the judicial system

and if they did, the SC would simply rule it unconstitutional

[FBaggins]

5. That's not strictly true

There's lots of legislation effecting the judicial system (actually... both affecting and effecting). They created much of the system after all.

But their ability to change the practices of SCOTUS itself is more limited by the separation of powers.

[Buckeyeblue]

6. But on what grounds?

Any legislation would have to be passed by the House and Senate and be signed by the president.

The constitution doesn't say that the SC can't have rules under which they operate.

And while you may not be limited in removing a justice (impeachment) there may be other penalties imposed, such as fines, suspensions, etc.

Is nothing else, a good public shaming.

[rgbecker]

9. Impeachment works for me. Fastest way to re-balance the court.

I hope to God the Democrats take both houses.

[dware]

10. How is impeachment the fastest way to re-balance the court?

Where in the Senate do you see 67 Senators voting to convict and remove any Justice?

[rgbecker]

12. Long shot for sure. I'm always hopeful.

[dware]

13. Always being hopeful is good,

but the fastest way to re-balance the court is to add 4 more seats to match the number of Circuit Courts.