Originally Posted by perotista
Coequal branches of government. The separation of powers between the branches of government. The president nor congress can tell the SCOTUS what to do. What congress can do is basically limited to impeachment of any of the SCOTUS justices. Which only one has been impeached, he was acquitted in the senate. Samuel Chase in 1805.
This is a bug-a-boo of mine. The branches are not "co-equal", they are coordinate. I know people don't like to make that distinction, but if one wants to be an "originalist", that distinction is important. Coequal indicates "of the same level", whereas coordinate means "with separate responsibilities". The term co-equal was the mantra Franklin Roosevelt made popular, because he wanted to expand the scope of the Executive branch, so he wanted to be on par with Congress.

The framers, however, envisioned Congress as the preeminent branch - the one that makes the laws - and representing the people, themselves. The Executive executes the laws - passed by Congress; the Judiciary interprets the laws - passed by Congress. That is why all of those "government authorities" given to the federal government are under the auspices of Congress in Article I. Therefore, all of the powers of the Presidency and Judiciary are inferior to Congress' - which is why Congress is given authority to circumscribe the authority of the courts - including the Supreme Court - "under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."; and to "advise and consent" to appointments and Treaties.

Because of that, Congress does have the authority to set forth rules of behavior for both the Executive and Judiciary. They just haven't. But they can. The Supreme Court is actually aware of this, which is why they want to keep ethics considerations at home. But they know they are governed by the same law the rest of us are - "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" - and they know, for example, that they have to report income sources - and if they don't, that is an impeachable offense. Similarly, they can be bound by an ethics rule set down by Congress, in law. And if they don't comply, can be impeached. They don't want it to come to that. Alito and Thomas are making it necessary.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich