Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2 states have changed the # of justices on their SC - GA and AZ.
If the USSC was hearing a larger # of cases at the same detail AND they assign each case to an individual Justice somehow to "develop", then more Justices would make sense.
This doesn't seem to be the case. The qualification for being heard is 4 of the 9 have to agree to bring the case up. Would this then become 5 of 11? 6 of 13?
Co-incidentally, your own state of NC tried and failed to increase its SC....several times.
Have you considered that SCOTUS may currently be limiting the number of cases it takes precisely for the reason of too few Justices, and maybe too few law clerks? Currently, they decide about 1% of requests.
Right now, a single justice (responsible for the appropriate circuit) can decide alone whether an application for Certiorari moves forward for consideration by the full court.
What's your difficulty with 5/11 or 6/13?
I agree that Trump supporters rising up and creating chaos also seems highly unlikely. It’ll be the same as any group unhappy their candidate lost. We’ll hear complaining and threats of moving to Canada. Just the usual angst. Most people will spend a day or two upset, then they’ll get on with their lives until we go through all of this again in 4 years.
Agree back at'cha. This kind of catastrophizing some are engaging in really doesn't help matters. I think we only need to worry about the extremists, the ones who lost their cool during their self-appointed "duty" to "protect" other people's property, or who instigated some of the violence while blaming protesters as cover for their own activity, but even then, I don't really see them going nuts simply at the result of an election count.
The court is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of law. Selecting judges based on their political ideology seems inherently wrong to me, since that is not supposed to play into their roles on the bench.
Exactly. The current state of affairs, where judges get confirmed to a lifetime appointment, with a simple majority vote is nuts.
The growth from six to nine is less severe than many parts of government, but I expect it will shrink as the government becomes unable to borrow money and the average income of lawyers drops. With fewer lawyers making less money, there will be fewer lawsuits.
If the Democrats take the Senate and the White House, and then keep the House, it’s game over. They will 100% pack the courts.
Here is the game plan:
1) Kill the Senate filibuster
2) Pack SCOTUS to 15 members, also pack the lower courts.
3) DC and Puerto Rico statehood, extra 4 Senators to ensure the Senate stays blue
4) Kill the electoral college, opening up true mob rule
5) Give all non citizens residing in the US the right to vote, open the borders. They may be happy with the first 4, so they may hold off on this one for awhile.
I don’t think most Trump supporters understand how close they are to a complete and lasting defeat.
I don’t think most Democrats understand what Schumer, Pelosi, the Clinton Foundation, and Harris/Biden are really striving for. They keep saying that the US won’t fundamentally change, so either they don’t get it, or they are being disengenuous and trying to downplay those real objectives.
At least Biden didn’t lie and deny he wouldn’t pack the courts. He knows what they will do, he just doesn’t want us all to know it too.
Is it ethical? Not sure, but I think it makes us look like Venezuela as Hugo Chavez used this same tactic.
Politically smart? It’s very politically smart for the party that does it. Good for the nation? Not hardly. Completely disenfranchising 60 million voters is a recipe for disaster.
I think you are right in what the Democrats will try to do if they take the Senate and the White House. I would add to it a constitutional amendment to limit the court to 15 members. Otherwise this could go back and forth and we could end up with more court members than house members. #1 should be fairly easy, the others on you list not so much.
I am wondering why Biden and Harris just don't admit they will pack the court if they have the chance? Does it not poll well enough?
The original SCOTUS was six members. In 1807, the number was increased to seven, in 1837 it was increased to nine, in 1863, it was increased to 10, in 1866 it was reduced back to seven and in 1869 it went back up to nine.
So what happened when the court was reduced from 10 to 7? Did that mean that future vacancies were not filled or could the remove sitting judges?
The tradition had been for there to be a Justice from each of the federal court districts. District boundaries changed with time, but with the 1866 act, the intent of the Republican majority was to do away with the practice; this was intended to diminish southern influence on the Court. The reduction in size nullified the pending nomination of Henry Stanbery to the Court and was intended to prevent, which it did, President Johnson from making nominations. Those actions and the deaths of Justices Catron and Wayne, wrapped it up.
I don't think I missed anything, someone else might want to check my math and names.
I think you are right in what the Democrats will try to do if they take the Senate and the White House. I would add to it a constitutional amendment to limit the court to 15 members. Otherwise this could go back and forth and we could end up with more court members than house members. #1 should be fairly easy, the others on you list not so much.
I am wondering why Biden and Harris just don't admit they will pack the court if they have the chance? Does it not poll well enough?
From a pragmatic standpoint what would you do in the same position?
The polls say they are well ahead and more people are angry at Trump for trying to appoint a third firebrand conservative to the court. Why should the democrats do anything to change the issues?
Last edited by markg91359; 10-08-2020 at 10:37 AM..
The tradition had been for there to be a Justice from each of the federal court districts. District boundaries changed with time, but with the 1866 act, the intent of the Republican majority was to do away with the practice; this was intended to diminish southern influence on the Court. The reduction in size nullified the pending nomination of Henry Stanbery to the Court and was intended to prevent, which it did, President Johnson from making nominations. Those actions and the deaths of Justices Catron and Wayne, wrapped it up.
I don't think I missed anything, someone else might want to check my math and names.
Given the increase in population and workload since 1870, I think a reasonable case can be made that it is at least time to look again at the composition. Currently some justices seem to have greater Circuit responsibility than others.
Given the increase in population and workload since 1870, I think a reasonable case can be made that it is at least time to look again at the composition. Currently some justices seem to have greater Circuit responsibility than others.
Die hard conservatives have brought this on themselves by playing fast and loose with the appointment process. Had they gone along with the appointment of Merrick Garland in 2016 (which they should have) we wouldn't be in this place today.
Conservatives are an interesting bunch. They win the presidency with an electoral majority rather than a popular vote majority and have a slim majority in the Senate. I think in most countries--in that situation--problems like supreme court nominations would be resolved by picking compromise candidates. That's not the way that die hard conservatives think though. Instead, they try to spend most of their day devising ways to make things happen by getting a one vote margin in the Senate over their opponents. Their idea is that one vote ought to be the basis for deciding all controversial issues in the country. I submit that democrats would not have behaved the same way. Its why Obama chose a moderate nominee, Merrick Garland, for Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court.
We apparently can't prevent them from doing this to pick the next supreme court justice. We can use the same tactic after the coming election to add to the court. I'm sorry its come to this, but this is what an unwillingness to compromise ultimately leads too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This kind of catastrophizing some are engaging in really doesn't help matters. I think we only need to worry about the extremists, the ones who lost their cool during their self-appointed "duty" to "protect" other people's property, or who instigated some of the violence while blaming protesters as cover for their own activity, but even then, I don't really see them going nuts simply at the result of an election count.
