Could 5 Supreme Court justices act with legal impunity?

[Colibri]

@usedtobe

There have been stranger things happen than the SCOTUS to attempt to murder someone in open court;
How many ever thought giving the House the sole authority to originate spending bills would result in a small group of loons the ability to bankrupt the country?

Even stranger: who imagined that such a scenario would actually come to pass?

Moderator Note

usedtobe, let’s not indulge in extraneous political commentary, but stick to facts regarding the Supreme Court. No warning issued, but don’t do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Snnipe_70E]

@Alley_Dweller

The justices would most certainly be arrested.

Could they not then have their lawyer file a habeas petition, which most certainly would be denied. Then their lawyer could file an appeal of the denial and when that is denied, he could petition the Supreme Court and five Justices could vote to hear the appeal. (It only takes four Justices to vote to hear a case.) The Justices could refuse to recuse themselves and vote to grant a writ of habeas corpus, no?

Or even simpler, I believe the Supreme Court has the right to grant petition for an extraordinary writ of habeas corpus.

And I do see the problem of how the Justices are going to vote on all these motions unless they have been let out of jail on bail.

Congress also has the right to keep the Supreme Court from hearing a case.

[Alley_Dweller]

@Snnipe_70E

Congress also has the right to keep the Supreme Court from hearing a case.

That is absolutely true. But could Congress act in time to prevent the Court from granting itself habeas?

[Saint_Cad]

And impeachment/conviction has been established as outside of the judicial branch so SCotUS declaring their impeachment unconstitutional holds as much authority as a Sovereign Citizen doing the same thing.

[brazil84]

@jtgain

In the early years of the republic, there was a lot of debate on whether the Supreme Court had the power of judicial review. In Marbury v. Madison, the Court sort of took it itself. Since it has (for the most part) restrained itself and used its power in a responsible manner, everyone has consented to this ultimate authority.

If it starts murdering people and refusing impeachment, that respect would likely wane a bit.

I agree – but it all hinges on the respect the Supreme Court has built up over the years.

[brazil84]

@Alley_Dweller

And I do see the problem of how the Justices are going to vote on all these motions unless they have been let out of jail on bail.

Is there a requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be in a particular place in order to exercise the powers of his office? By tradition, the Supreme Court sits in the structure known as the Supreme Court, but is that a a written requirement? And even if it were, then (at least in theory), the Supreme Court itself would have the power to interpret that requirement.

[brazil84]

@Snnipe_70E

Congress also has the right to keep the Supreme Court from hearing a case.

Well suppose that Congress passes a jurisdiction-stripping bill. In theory, the Supreme Court could strike it down as unconstitutional.

[Colibri]

@brazil84

Is there a requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be in a particular place in order to exercise the powers of his office? By tradition, the Supreme Court sits in the structure known as the Supreme Court, but is that a a written requirement? And even if it were, then (at least in theory), the Supreme Court itself would have the power to interpret that requirement.

They have to have a quorum, which means they have to be in the same place. If they were held in different cells, they wouldn’t be able to meet and make any decisions.

@brazil84

Well suppose that Congress passes a jurisdiction-stripping bill. In theory, the Supreme Court could strike it down as unconstitutional.

No they couldn’t. They could say anything they want, but they can’t “strike it down” because everyone would (literally) laugh them out of court. The Constitution sets their jurisdiction.

[lawbuff]

@Habeed

Since the Justices can pretty much declare any ruling they like, imagine that 5 justices got together and committed a murder in their courtroom. They would declare any warrants out for their arrest unconstitutional, and when Congress tried to impeach them, they would declare the impeachment proceedings invalid for legal technicalities.

How would, exactly, the government resolve this situation?

Trying to escape a murder charge based on this is legally silly.

While the SC has it’s own Police Force, like the Capitol, do you think they would risk thier lives defending the Justices when arrest warrants are served?

I think the FBI would win!!

[lawbuff]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Nonsensical scenario.

The Supreme Court can only hear cases that are brought to them through codified processes. They can’t make random rulings on laws. An arrest warrant isn’t even a law. It can’t be declared unconstitutional.

I disagree, if they do not conform to 4th Amendment strictures, they can be declared invalid/unconstitutional.

[lawbuff]

@Smapti

Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction over the court building?

NO!

[lawbuff]

@brazil84

Is there a requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be in a particular place in order to exercise the powers of his office? By tradition, the Supreme Court sits in the structure known as the Supreme Court, but is that a a written requirement? And even if it were, then (at least in theory), the Supreme Court itself would have the power to interpret that requirement.

Before the Court building was finished in 1935, they met at various places, MOSTLY in the Capitol building.

It has nothing to do with inherent powers.

[Colibri]

@lawbuff

I disagree, if they do not conform to 4th Amendment strictures, they can be declared invalid/unconstitutional.

But it would have to be brought before the Supreme Court via some legal proceeding. They couldn’t just declare it unconstitutional beforehand.

[brazil84]

@lawbuff

Before the Court building was finished in 1935, they met at various places, MOSTLY in the Capitol building.

It has nothing to do with inherent powers.

I agree. So that a Supreme Court justice who is sitting in jail would still, at least in theory, be a Supreme Court justice. As a practical matter he might be ignored, but then again, under some circumstances he might be taken seriously.

[lawbuff]

@Colibri

But it would have to be brought before the Supreme Court via some legal proceeding. They couldn’t just declare it unconstitutional beforehand.

They could not, but an inferior court could. One Judge could issue an arrest warrant, yet another could invalidate it as violating the 4th, same with a search warrant.

[Colibri]

@brazil84

I agree. So that a Supreme Court justice who is sitting in jail would still, at least in theory, be a Supreme Court justice. As a practical matter he might be ignored, but then again, under some circumstances he might be taken seriously.

However, he wouldn’t be able to meet with other judges unless he was permitted to, so he wouldn’t actually be able to make any significant decisions.

[Ravenman]

@brazil84

I agree. So that a Supreme Court justice who is sitting in jail would still, at least in theory, be a Supreme Court justice. As a practical matter he might be ignored, but then again, under some circumstances he might be taken seriously.

I think the most ludicrous part of all these conspiracy theories about the Supreme Court taking over the country, or Presidents cancelling elections, etc. in that for any of these schemes to succeed, everyone else in addition to the budding dictator must also lose their friggin’ minds.

For example, let’s say CJ Roberts is sitting in a jail cell, and he carves a writ into a bar of soap that orders the sheriff to release him. What kind of moronic sheriff must be in place to actually decide: “Whelp, he’s the Chief Justice who only tried an illegal, unconstitutional coup against our whole form of government. I guess he has to do what he says and let him go! Too bad the Founding Fathers didn’t see this coming!”

Like that sheriff isn’t going to worry that he’s going to get fired/lose his next re-election/end up in prison too because he took orders from a traitor. Let’s get just a little bit real here.

[lawbuff]

@brazil84

I agree. So that a Supreme Court justice who is sitting in jail would still, at least in theory, be a Supreme Court justice. As a practical matter he might be ignored, but then again, under some circumstances he might be taken seriously.

You could bet there would be a MANDATORY Recusal by the other Justices/and or a quorum of 8 would vote, effectively, he has no power, even if not impeached yet.

[brazil84]

@Ravenman

I think the most ludicrous part of all these conspiracy theories about the Supreme Court taking over the country, or Presidents cancelling elections, etc. in that for any of these schemes to succeed, everyone else in addition to the budding dictator must also lose their friggin’ minds.

For example, let’s say CJ Roberts is sitting in a jail cell, and he carves a writ into a bar of soap that orders the sheriff to release him. What kind of moronic sheriff must be in place to actually decide: “Whelp, he’s the Chief Justice who only tried an illegal, unconstitutional coup against our whole form of government. I guess he has to do what he says and let him go! Too bad the Founding Fathers didn’t see this coming!”

I agree, but as I alluded to in my post (as well as in earlier posts), there is a difference between theory and practice.

So that when people make theoretical arguments about why the Supreme Court could not act with legal impunity, – for example that they would not have jurisdiction, or that their jurisdiction could be stripped, or that the Court could be packed, and so on – they are incorrect.

The actual reason the Supreme Court cannot act with legal impunity is that would not be respected and instead would be ignored.

[brazil84]

@lawbuff

You could bet there would be a MANDATORY Recusal by the other Justices/and or a quorum of 8 would vote, effectively, he has no power, even if not impeached yet.

Not necessarily, for example if the President declared a coup and placed 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices under arrest.