5 ms·

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_18

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869 Congress has already established the composition and the procedures of the court. Of course it has that power.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 6y ago
No. It does not. The separation of powers would make such a law unconstitutional. The judiciary would never abide by it. And good luck to Congress trying to enforce it. Never in the history of the republic has one branch of government been able to dictate in such granularity who may be hired by another branch.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dmckeon 6y ago
  A claim with well over 1000 exceptions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_positions_filled_by_presidential_appointment_with_Senate_confirmation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_positions_filled_by_pr...
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    Apples and oranges. Senate confirmation is not the same thing as a law prohibiting the hiring of people with certain experience. And it is certainly not the same as usurping the hiring decision entirely.
- jkaplowitz 6y ago
  You're underestimating how much power Congress legitimately has over the rest of the government, when they choose to exercise it. All money spent by the federal government in all three branches, including on judicial clerk compensation salaries, is determined by Congressional authorization and congressional statutes regarding employment and compensation. Congressional statute law heavily regulates hiring throughout the executive branch, despite that being a separate branch of government from Congress. There's no reason the judiciary is any different. What's more, while the procedural rules of the federal courts are mostly set by the federal courts themselves, this is done under the authority of an act of Congress, which has been amended several times both to increase and reduce the courts' self-regulatory authority. As for the Federal Rules of Evidence, Congress refused to allow the version of those which the Supreme Court originally approved to go into affect, and then they later passed a substantially altered version as an Act of Congress. The Constitution itself makes explicit Congress's ability to regulate the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction (which applies to almost all of its docket) and even to reduce the scope of that jurisdiction. And it has pretty plenary power to add, remove, and restructure the inferior federal courts, aside from whatever tenure protections apply to individual judges who have not been impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate. And, as others have said, the Senate even individually approves federal judges as per its constitutional mandate under the appointments clause. This is certainly not a separation of powers violation.
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    I'm not underestimating anything. You're outside your depth here. Congress can ordain and establish inferior courts, and can regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, it cannot regulate much of the judiciary outside that. For one, it cannot expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Marbury. Nor can it dictate how the court applies the law. Klein. Congress's power over the federal judiciary is constrained and there is no basis in the text of the Constitution or in any case law to support your position.
    - evgen 6y ago
      Marbury is nothing more than a power-grab by the judiciary that we have all decided to abide by, for the moment. The judiciary has no power whatsoever other than that which comes from its perceived legitimacy; legitimacy which has been heavily damaged over the past 20 years and which is dangling by a thread at the moment. There is really nothing stopping Congress from slapping back the Supremes other than convention, and I suspect that this is going to be ending soon -- Congress can cut the Supreme Court back to nothing but original jurisdiction and then create a new court for constitutional appeals to bypass them completely. Quoting case law won't help them and no matter what they may claim there is nothing nine politicians in black robes can do about it if the other two branches decide that this is how things are going to work going forward.
      - torstenvl 6y ago
        No, Congress cannot just create a shadow Supreme Court within our Constitutional framework. And if you're talking about disregarding the Constitution, then your point is meaningless.
        evgen 6y ago
        Disregarding what the Supreme Court says the Constitution says != disregarding the Constitution. Important distinction that will become more important in the future.
        6y ago
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Judges would be pretty outraged over meddling with their personal fiefdoms, no doubt. And modern congress is pretty spineless in general. But the power and precedent exists — see the Pendleton Civil Service Act. Even in these times, the federal bureaucracy is a significant barrier to systematic corruption and patronage.
- 6nf 6y ago
  A careful reading of the Constitution will reveal that Congress is more powerful than the other two branches — and rightfully so. Only Congress can make laws, and can do so with or without the president's consent. Congress can remove a president or a Supreme Court justice, but only Congress can expel a member.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

torstenvl 6y ago

No. It does not. The separation of powers would make such a law unconstitutional. The judiciary would never abide by it. And good luck to Congress trying to enforce it. Never in the history of the republic has one branch of government been able to dictate in such granularity who may be hired by another branch.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dmckeon 6y ago
A claim with well over 1000 exceptions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_positions_filled_by_presidential_appointment_with_Senate_confirmation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_positions_filled_by_pr...
- torstenvl 6y ago
  Apples and oranges. Senate confirmation is not the same thing as a law prohibiting the hiring of people with certain experience. And it is certainly not the same as usurping the hiring decision entirely.
jkaplowitz 6y ago
You're underestimating how much power Congress legitimately has over the rest of the government, when they choose to exercise it. All money spent by the federal government in all three branches, including on judicial clerk compensation salaries, is determined by Congressional authorization and congressional statutes regarding employment and compensation. Congressional statute law heavily regulates hiring throughout the executive branch, despite that being a separate branch of government from Congress. There's no reason the judiciary is any different. What's more, while the procedural rules of the federal courts are mostly set by the federal courts themselves, this is done under the authority of an act of Congress, which has been amended several times both to increase and reduce the courts' self-regulatory authority. As for the Federal Rules of Evidence, Congress refused to allow the version of those which the Supreme Court originally approved to go into affect, and then they later passed a substantially altered version as an Act of Congress. The Constitution itself makes explicit Congress's ability to regulate the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction (which applies to almost all of its docket) and even to reduce the scope of that jurisdiction. And it has pretty plenary power to add, remove, and restructure the inferior federal courts, aside from whatever tenure protections apply to individual judges who have not been impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate. And, as others have said, the Senate even individually approves federal judges as per its constitutional mandate under the appointments clause. This is certainly not a separation of powers violation.
- torstenvl 6y ago
  I'm not underestimating anything. You're outside your depth here. Congress can ordain and establish inferior courts, and can regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, it cannot regulate much of the judiciary outside that. For one, it cannot expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Marbury. Nor can it dictate how the court applies the law. Klein. Congress's power over the federal judiciary is constrained and there is no basis in the text of the Constitution or in any case law to support your position.
  - evgen 6y ago
    Marbury is nothing more than a power-grab by the judiciary that we have all decided to abide by, for the moment. The judiciary has no power whatsoever other than that which comes from its perceived legitimacy; legitimacy which has been heavily damaged over the past 20 years and which is dangling by a thread at the moment. There is really nothing stopping Congress from slapping back the Supremes other than convention, and I suspect that this is going to be ending soon -- Congress can cut the Supreme Court back to nothing but original jurisdiction and then create a new court for constitutional appeals to bypass them completely. Quoting case law won't help them and no matter what they may claim there is nothing nine politicians in black robes can do about it if the other two branches decide that this is how things are going to work going forward.
    - torstenvl 6y ago
      No, Congress cannot just create a shadow Supreme Court within our Constitutional framework. And if you're talking about disregarding the Constitution, then your point is meaningless.
      - evgen 6y ago
        Disregarding what the Supreme Court says the Constitution says != disregarding the Constitution. Important distinction that will become more important in the future.
      - 6y ago
Spooky23 6y ago
Judges would be pretty outraged over meddling with their personal fiefdoms, no doubt. And modern congress is pretty spineless in general. But the power and precedent exists — see the Pendleton Civil Service Act. Even in these times, the federal bureaucracy is a significant barrier to systematic corruption and patronage.
6nf 6y ago
A careful reading of the Constitution will reveal that Congress is more powerful than the other two branches — and rightfully so. Only Congress can make laws, and can do so with or without the president's consent. Congress can remove a president or a Supreme Court justice, but only Congress can expel a member.