Drag to reposition your photo

Rebecca Canales

Female. Born on December 14, 1973.

Joined Groups1

7 Members

Whittier Neighborhood Watch

Community

Rebecca Canales

Report this User

Status Update

Rebecca Canales

June 14, 2024 1:14 am

Why Congressional Regulation of the US Supreme Court on Recusals, Ethics, and Case Decisions is Unconstitutional In recent discussions, some Congressional Democrats have proposed measures to regulat... View MoreWhy Congressional Regulation of the US Supreme Court on Recusals, Ethics, and Case Decisions is Unconstitutional In recent discussions, some Congressional Democrats have proposed measures to regulate the U.S. Supreme Court concerning recusals, ethics, and even the way cases are heard and decided. While these proposals aim to enhance transparency and accountability, they raise significant constitutional concerns. Such measures, if implemented, would likely be unconstitutional. This article will explore why these proposals conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the principles of judicial independence. The Constitution's Framework The U.S. Constitution establishes a system of government based on the separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This structure is designed to ensure that no single branch becomes too powerful and to maintain a system of checks and balances. Article III of the Constitution outlines the judicial power of the United States, specifically: Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Section 2: Describes the extent of judicial power, including the Supreme Court's original and appellate jurisdiction. These sections underscore the independence of the judiciary and its role as a co-equal branch of government. Congressional Power and Judicial Independence Congress has certain powers related to the judiciary, including the ability to establish inferior courts and regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, these powers do not extend to dictating how the Supreme Court should operate in terms of ethics, recusals, or case decisions. Ethics and Recusals The Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to impose ethical regulations or mandatory recusal rules on the Supreme Court. Such regulations would infringe upon the judiciary's independence. The principle of judicial independence is rooted in the need for judges to make decisions free from political pressure or influence. Article III, Section 1 states that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour," which generally means they serve for life unless impeached. This provision ensures that justices can make decisions based solely on the law and the Constitution, without fear of retribution or external control. Historically, the Supreme Court has maintained its own ethical standards and recusal practices. Each justice decides whether to recuse themselves from a case, guided by principles of judicial propriety and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which, while not binding on the Supreme Court, provides a framework for ethical behavior. Case Decisions The power to decide cases and controversies is vested solely in the judiciary. Article III, Section 2 outlines the judicial power, extending it to all cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties. This section ensures that the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution and federal laws independently. Proposals that seek to regulate how the Supreme Court hears and decides cases would violate this constitutional framework. The judiciary's role is to interpret and apply the law, a function that must remain free from legislative interference to preserve the separation of powers. Judicial Review and Constitutional Interpretation The principle of judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), allows the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional. This power reinforces the Court's role as a check on the legislative and executive branches. Attempts by Congress to regulate the Court's decision-making process would undermine this essential function. Article III, Section 2 also allows Congress to make "Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" regarding the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. However, this power does not extend to stripping the Court of its fundamental role in interpreting the Constitution and protecting individual rights. Conclusion While efforts to enhance the transparency and accountability of the Supreme Court are commendable, they must be balanced with the constitutional principle of judicial independence. Proposals to regulate recusals, ethics, and case decisions encroach upon the judiciary's autonomy and violate the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution carefully delineates the powers of each branch of government to prevent any one branch from exerting undue influence over another. Maintaining this balance is crucial to the functioning of a democratic society. Therefore, any attempt by Congress to regulate the Supreme Court in these areas would be unconstitutional and undermine the foundational principles of American governance. By Rebecca Canales

View Less

Be the first person to like this.

Recent Photos

View More Photos