On July 28, 2023, conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said: washington post Congress has no power to regulate the Supreme Court on ethics and most other internal matters, he said in an interview.

On the same day, Congressman Ted Liu tweeted: “Dear Judge Alito: You are on the Supreme Court in part because Congress expanded the court to nine judges. You can take away your powers.Congress has always regulated you and will continue to regulate you.You are not above the law.” Illinois Senator Richard Durbin, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, echoed Mr. Liu’s view. statement “To be clear, Judge Alito is not the 101st member of the U.S. Senate. His intervention in Article 1 activities is unwise and unwelcome.”

Well, Ted Liu is no stupid man. He has a Georgetown Law degree, and he may know basic constitutions. I think he is. The problem is not Liu’s lack of intelligence. he is intelligent enough The problem is that he appears to be driving the party line for political ends. Durbin, on the other hand, seems to confuse oversight of Congress with the ability to control the Supreme Court. Parliament’s powers over the courts are limited and enshrined in the constitution.

Congress’ sole power over the Supreme Court is to give the president’s advice and consent in electing justices.look Article 2, paragraph 2 2.2 constitutional. Congress can also impeach judges for serious offenses such as: treason, bribery, or other serious and misdemeanor crimes; Article 1 Article 2 2.5.of The Senate, like the president, decides whether to convict or remove judges. Article 3, paragraph 2 1 The Constitution states that “jurisdiction of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as may be enacted and established by Congress from time to time,” and gives Congress the power to expand or contract the laws. number of judges.

Parliament has the power to control the Supreme Court only in the context of the above rules set forth in the Constitution. Given that there are no other explicit powers, anything else is a hoax and an overreach of legislative authority. There is no provision that allows Congress to tell courts what is ethical and what is not.

If Congress is authorized to create a court’s code of ethics, and that rule is challenged by someone affected, the affected party can take the case up to the Supreme Court. If this issue were brought to court, the court could theoretically consider the statute unconstitutional. Courts are the final arbitrators of federal law, making the whole argument somewhat circular and meaningless. Ultimately, only the Supreme Court can decide how to conduct its business.

The Constitution establishes three equal branches of government independent of each other, or separation of powers. If either House of Congress could control the operation of the Supreme Court, it would violate the separation of powers, because judiciary would not be equivalent to legislation.

Andreros Mitchell is a Washington, DC attorney and author focused on free speech and other constitutional issues.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.