Stuffing Supreme Court

No where did I say it was going against the Constitution. I said it circumvented the Constitution. It makes an end run around the Constitution. The Constitution provides for the replacement of an empty seat by the president nominating a justice and the senate confirming the candidate. It does not provide for adding more seats for the sole purpose of gaining a majority.

 

Where does it stop it?

The Constitution permitted Congress to decide the organization of the Supreme Court, and the legislative branch first exercised this power with the Judiciary Act of 1789. The act, signed into law by President George Washington, specified that the court would be made up of six justices who would serve on the court until they died or retired.
...
Current Supreme Court Justices
Though the first court comprised of six justices, Congress altered the number of Supreme Court seats — from a low of five to a high of 10 — six times over the years. In 1869, Congress set the number of seats to nine, where it has remained until today.
https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/supreme-court-facts

Looks like it's already changed. So I don't see what argument you're attempting to make.

 

It changed from six to nine, not to twenty or whatever number the democrats consider safe for their agenda. Many believe the supreme court is too big already. Rather than having meaningful discussions among all members, whoever is speaking would get up in front of the crowd and then they all vote on it. What happens next, when the republicans get control, we bump it up forty or whatever it takes? It is really a bad idea.

 

It doesn't have to be that way, but it probably will due to both major parties always putting the good of the party above the good of the country. I have no use for either party. Until one or the other begins to represent the average Joe American, to Hades with both.

I just read where the Democrats said if Trump gets his nominee appointed they'll do away with the filibuster. Another prime example of party over country and 200 years of senate tradition. First the Democrats strip the minority party of their rights with invoking the nuclear option for nominees, now it seems the Democrats will strip away what rights are left of the minority party. I hope this isn't lost on those who say the Democrats promote minority rights. False, just power unto themselves. The GOP is just as bad. Screw them both.

Our two major parties are leading us, this country down road to doom and destruction and are very happy in so doing as long as destroy all also destroys the other party.

 

I can't wait until there are 55 justices on the court. I wonder how long it will take them to do anything.

 

So no constitutional circumvention. Just your personal opinion?

In my link it had changed 6X. Up until 1869. And hasn't changed since. But there's no constitutional reason it can't be changed.

 

That does not mean it is a good idea. Such notions tend to propagate and the republicans will increase it to another outrageous number and the democrats will complain about it. It is a really bad idea.

 

Your personal opinion is noted.

 

"Dems continue to respect convention"

Is that what the Kavanaugh debacle was? The Democrats dragged a SCOTUS pick through the mud, and they tried every dirty trick of character assassination on him, and that was "respecting convention" was it?

Yeah, spare me your pearl clutching theatrics.

 

Of course not. The Constitution doesn't even have any requirements to be on the Supreme Court. You don't even have to be a lawyer or an American citizen

Most of what we take for granted about the Supreme Court was in fact not from the constitution but from the actions of the first Supreme Court. Chief Justice Marshall's IIRC. Things like "judicial review" were established then. I think it was Marshall who said to the effect "The Supreme Court is governed by the Constitution. But the Constitution is what the court says it is."

 

So you don't have a problem with just continually increasing the number of justices on the supreme court?

 

Please post an opinion she wrote that supports your assertion.

 

If Trump's presidency proved anything it's that we can no longer rely on historic conventions with respect to governance. He has exploited every absence of specific statute regulating behavior, and even violated some of those that do exist, in pursuit of his treacherous agenda.

Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform
https://www.lawfareblog.com/repairing-rule-law-agenda-post-trump-reform

 

Continually? It hasn't changed since 1869.

Never gave it study to determine the good and bad or the number needed.
The only opinion I have is it should be an odd number so it's extremely difficult to have ties.
But the number on the court, I wouldn't have an informed opinion.

I don't like the fact that there are so called liberals and so call conservatives.

Laws should not be based on political ideology.

 

wait...he's exploited every law that doesn't exist???

and even some that do? Which ones are those?

 

So you don't have a problem if it gets up to a fifty or a hundred members?

But isn't that exactly what the democrats are proposing? A court makeup based on political ideology?

 

I think it's looking to have the opposite effect.
Isn't the thinking at this point is it will be 6 conservatives to 3 liberals?

Do the number of justices change how the court operates? If so, how?

 

Yes. Slower. My experience with the larger the number of people who take part in the decision, the slower the answer.

 

The type of thinking here by the Democrats is exactly the type they had when not caring that President Obama was signing executive orders left and right.

When challenged as to what about when we had a Republican president, the Democrats would routinely say to the effect, "America won't elect another Republican president for at least 20 years (because of Bush).".

Now they are assuming the exact same thing. Who cares if we dramatically increase the size of the Supreme Court? Because thanks to Trump, this country won't elect another GOP president for 20 or even 30 years.

Idiots.

 

I love that the Dems are starting to shoot their mouths off about packing SCOTUS again. This will just give the GOP ammunition to use against them in a month and half.

The Democrats can't win anything fair and square, so they demand a rule change....
Hillary lost to Trump? DOWN WITH THE EC! PV ONLY!
SCOTUS isn't ruling like they want? INCREASE NUMBER OF JUSTICES TO MAKE IT MORE LIBERAL!

 

It's already slow.
The judges all hear the case and they have X amount of time to make a decision. I don't see how the number of people rendering a decision makes it slower. They all need to respond in X amount of time.

 

It will get slower. More of them will want to comment.

 

So, your main concern is decisions will be slower. With no basis for that. How long does a comment take?

 

Right. I am sure all of them will just get up there and just make a comment. You really believe that?

 

They can, but they will need to control congress and the white house to get it done.
If the dems win congress and the white house after the repubs ram through a final rightwing supreme, then I say do it.