Expanding The Supreme Court

[onlinebiker]

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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_P...ad%20ruled

[chimp3]

Luckily, it is not easy to amend or repeal a Constitutional amendment.

Constitutional amendment is not involved.

Hmm, I stand corrected.

[Rev. Rye]

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.

[Brian37]

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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

[The Architect Of Fate]

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 .

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.   

Yes? Really want to set that precedence?

It's that or let the Republicans set precedent .

---

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

[arewethereyet]

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.

---

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.