By withholding funding?
It’s that simple. What would happen if Congress zeroed out the budget for the federal judiciary and the president signed the spending bill? Wouldn’t that effectively shut down the system?
Could anything be done about it?
There was once a time when such a hypothetical would be met with a “don’t be stupid”.
Except for the Supreme Court which is established in the Constitution, Congress has sole power to establish inferior courts so I presume they could kill off all of them except for SCOTUS as long as they don’t fire the out-of-work judges (put them on a sinecure?) unless Congress impeaches/convicts all of them.
But even SCOTUS needs money. Maybe the justices would work without pay, but a quick Google search indicates they have 500 employees, and of course they have to pay electric bills, heat the building, buy pens, paper, laptops…
The Justices need to be paid without a reduction in salary as per Article III. Nothing demands that Congress pay for anything else.
The good old days. Four months ago.
I suppose they could, but would killing the judiciary necessarily work to their benefit?
'Twas just a thought experiment on how a president/congress might further dismantle something that stood in their way. Not intended to be seen as a fear or a prediction.
Just “Would this work?”
Strangling the judiciary to marginality (by defunding or just reducing their jurisdiction over specific areas) and then creating ‘special’ courts to administrate by Congressional or Presidential direction. That’s how the Nazis did it:
Stranger
The U.S. Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 1, provides that federal judges “shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” This is known as the Compensation Clause and is designed to protect judicial independence by preventing Congress or the President from reducing the salaries of sitting federal judges as a form of retaliation or political pressure.
Sure, but again, if we paid the judges but provided for nothing else- no heat, no staff, no bailiffs, no computers, etc. could they even function?
But if the justices are out of a job, who is going to declare the law unconstitutional?
Go for Corporate Sponsorship. It’s the American Way!
I mean, they’ve already approved bribery just so long as you can plausibly claim it was “Just the a tip”, so how hard could this be? If you’re worried about conflict of interest, well, don’t be, but if you insist, then make sure they get bribed by both sides in any dispute.
“coordination”…
I can see how the term coordination would appeal to Trump and his flying monkeys.
Oh, wow! What a fantastic idea! This judge is sponsored by so-and-so company, and this judge is brought to you by this-and-that company. And the robes would have sponsorships listed on the back like Little League uniforms. “Get your own judge, get 'em while they’re hot!” I think that will definitely catch on.
So make public what they try to keep private.
They need 60 votes in the Senate to accomplish anything, so the answer is “only if Chuck Schumer lets them”.
Even dictators want courts.
- They distribute the work.
- They offer the veil of legitimacy.
What they don’t want are honest courts. They want ones who understand the agenda and advance the agenda.
A fascistic Congress would want abilities to purge, promote, and punish. Removal just isn’t interesting.
Well, the easy way to get a pliant judiciary is to shut down the one they have, and create a whole new system using the same buildings and staff, but all new judges to go w the all new prosecutors.
The total salary of every federal judge is a rounding error in the court’s budget. Pay them for life to stay home. Then bring in the ringers. Imprison a few vocal whiners pour encourager les autres.
Done.
Unless they decide they only need 50 votes. Like they did in Trump’s first administration, on multiple occasions.
Good luck getting Thune, McConnell, Murkowski, Collins, and Paul onboard with abolishing the filibuster.