Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 4:49 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Expanding The Supreme Court
#11
RE: Expanding The Supreme Court
(September 26, 2020 at 11:19 am)Brian37 Wrote: Nice try, it is like blaming the fireman for what the arsonist did.

MITCH started this bullshit.

WTF are you blathering about?


The number of justices on the court has been 9 since 1869.

I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about - so I guess that means we are in agreement - as apparently you don't know what you're talking about either.
Reply
#12
RE: Expanding The Supreme Court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_P...ad%20ruled
Reply
#13
RE: Expanding The Supreme Court
(September 26, 2020 at 12:33 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:
(September 26, 2020 at 12:29 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Luckily, it is not easy to amend or repeal a Constitutional amendment.

Constitutional amendment is not involved.

Hmm, I stand corrected.
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!






Reply
#14
RE: Expanding The Supreme Court
If you really think "do you really want to go down that road" is an effective question in this context, you clearly haven't been paying attention for the last decade or so:





If there's anything that the Obama and Trump years have taught us, it's that the Republican Party has made abundantly clear that they A) are willing to destroy the country's ability to function, up to and including potentially bankrupting the nation, threatening to hold off ANY Supreme Court nominee until one of their presidents can nominate one, and even enabling the sitting president when he implies he has no intention of leaving office even if he loses the election, and B) have the power to do so.

To quote Johnny Lawrence: "You want a fair fight? Dream on. You can't always think your enemies are gonna play by the rules." And not only that, they have made abundantly clear that they have no plans on doing so; staying within the letter of the law, perhaps, but nonetheless, pushing the limits of what is technically allowable so they can win.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.

[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]

I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
Reply
#15
RE: Expanding The Supreme Court
(September 26, 2020 at 12:33 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:
(September 26, 2020 at 12:29 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Luckily, it is not easy to amend or repeal a Constitutional amendment.

Constitutional amendment is not involved.

Um actually that is what an  "amendment" is. It is the literal ability to change the Constitution. 

Chimp is right, while not impossible, it is damned hard to do so.
Reply
#16
RE: Expanding The Supreme Court
(September 26, 2020 at 5:09 pm)Brian37 Wrote:
(September 26, 2020 at 12:33 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Constitutional amendment is not involved.

Um actually that is what an  "amendment" is. It is the literal ability to change the Constitution. 

Chimp is right, while not impossible, it is damned hard to do so.

The actual point being made is that you don’t NEED an amendment to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn’t specify how many there should be.

Anomalocaris is perfectly correct. The number of justices is determined by statute, not by amendments.


Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#17
RE: Expanding The Supreme Court
Quote:WTF are you blathering about?


The number of justices on the court has been 9 since 1869.

I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about - so I guess that means we are in agreement - as apparently you don't know what you're talking about either
He started this bullshit by rewriting the rules about appointing judges during an election year thus denying Obama the ability to appoint a judge . This is a clear attempt to stack the court . And whether 1969 or 1856 there is a  precedent and the Republicans are clearly games so the left need a counter .
"Change was inevitable"


Nemo sicut deus debet esse!

[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]



 “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM


      
Reply
#18
RE: Expanding The Supreme Court
(September 26, 2020 at 5:31 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:
Quote:WTF are you blathering about?


The number of justices on the court has been 9 since 1869.

I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about - so I guess that means we are in agreement - as apparently you don't know what you're talking about either
He started this bullshit by rewriting the rules about appointing judges during an election year thus denying Obama the ability to appoint a judge . This is a clear attempt to stack the court . And whether 1969 or 1856 there is a  precedent and the Republicans are clearly games so the left need a counter .

I’m not sure that was ever a ‘rule’. A cynical, hypocritical dick move of epic proportions, but not a rule change.

Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#19
RE: Expanding The Supreme Court
Quote:If Biden wins the election - should they expand the number of Justices so Biden can appoint new justices more favorable to his agenda?
It has nothing to do with his agenda. It has everything to do with countering the Republican agenda to stack the court with unqualified partisan lunatics.   

Quote:Yes? Really want to set that precedence?
It's that or let the Republicans set precedent .

(September 26, 2020 at 5:35 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:
(September 26, 2020 at 5:31 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: He started this bullshit by rewriting the rules about appointing judges during an election year thus denying Obama the ability to appoint a judge . This is a clear attempt to stack the court . And whether 1969 or 1856 there is a  precedent and the Republicans are clearly games so the left need a counter .

I’m not sure that was ever a ‘rule’. A cynical, hypocritical dick move of epic proportions, but not a rule change.

Boru
According to them it was
"Change was inevitable"


Nemo sicut deus debet esse!

[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]



 “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM


      
Reply
#20
RE: Expanding The Supreme Court
https://constitution.laws.com/the-suprem...20in%20all.

As with other questions, the number of Justices in
the Supreme Court is not dealt with the Constitution. When the Court was first
established, it consisted of six members, comprising the Supreme Court Chief Justice
and five other Associate Justices. Without any fixed requirement for this
number, however, it frequently changed, with six shifts in all. The last such
change, in 1869, set the number at nine, which has continued in American
judicial practice up to the present.

(September 26, 2020 at 5:09 pm)Brian37 Wrote:
(September 26, 2020 at 12:33 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Constitutional amendment is not involved.

Um actually that is what an  "amendment" is. It is the literal ability to change the Constitution. 

Chimp is right, while not impossible, it is damned hard to do so.

Um...no,

While changing the constitution by adding an amendment is a difficult process it is not required in order to change the number of supreme court justices.
  
“If you are the smartest person in the room, then you are in the wrong room.” — Confucius
                                      
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Innocence is not enough for the Supreme Court... Rev. Rye 7 502 May 27, 2022 at 6:20 pm
Last Post: GUBU
  Navalny’s speech from court Fake Messiah 3 205 February 5, 2021 at 5:36 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Why you should fear Trump's pick for Supreme Court Judge Foxaèr 75 3953 October 31, 2020 at 10:52 am
Last Post: TaraJo
  Amy Coney Barnett officially confirmed as Supreme Court Justice Rev. Rye 33 1866 October 28, 2020 at 3:01 pm
Last Post: Rev. Rye
  UK Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful zebo-the-fat 6 580 September 25, 2019 at 1:16 pm
Last Post: GUBU
  The WLB's Next Supreme Court Pick? Minimalist 0 443 March 15, 2018 at 12:46 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Supreme Court Cases (and other interesting cases) - A Thread! TheRealJoeFish 11 3552 June 2, 2017 at 11:58 am
Last Post: TheRealJoeFish
  The WLB loses Another Court Fight Minimalist 0 573 May 17, 2017 at 5:48 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
Shocked Republican Party looking forward to the end of the Supreme Court? Rev. Rye 18 4318 October 29, 2016 at 9:41 am
Last Post: Rev. Rye
  Please, Mr. Supreme Court, Please.... Minimalist 0 358 August 16, 2016 at 8:05 pm
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)